Rouden v. Heisler's Estate

• Decision Date: 02 March 1920
• Docket Number: No. 15794.,15794.
• Citation: 219 S.W. 691
• Parties: ROUDEN v. HEISLER'S ESTATE.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

219 S.W. 691

ROUDEN v. HEISLER'S ESTATE.

No. 15794.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 2, 1920.

Appeal from Cape Girardeau Court of Common Pleas; John A. Snider, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Caroline Rouden against the estate of August C. Heisler, deceased; Annie Heisler, administratrix. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Edward D. Hays, of Cape Girardeau, and David B. Hays, of Jackson, for appellant.

A. M. Spradling, of Cape Girardeau, for respondent.

BECKER, J.

This is a proceeding begun in the Cape Girardeau court of common pleas to establish a demand against the estate of August C. Heisler, deceased, for services alleged to have been rendered by the claimant, Caroline Rouden, to the said Heisler during his lifetime. The case was tried before the court and a jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $3,920. From this judgment defendant prosecutes the appeal before us.

The account presented to the administratrix and filed in the court of common pleas is—

"For work and labor done and performed between the 2d day of October, 1899, and the 29th day of January, 1913, both inclusive, the same being housework, cooking, washing, ironing, feeding cows, milking cows and farm work, * * * at the special instance and request of the said August C. Heisler, being 784 weeks at $5.00 per week, totaling $3,920.00."

The administratrix of the estate of August C. Heisler, deceased, filed an answer to the claim in the nature of a general denial.

There is abundant, accumulative, and and uncontradicted evidence in the record that the claimant, together with her invalid daughter, upon the death of claimant's mother in 1899, moved to and became a member of the household of her brother, August C. Heisler, now deceased, and that from that time on until the 29th day of January, 1913, she continued to live upon his farm with him, doing not only all of the work that a wife of a farmer would do, but in addition thereto milked the cows, watered and fed the stock, and frequently helped in the field. Furthermore, according to the record the claimant was usually the first of those of the household to start her day's work, always getting up before sunrise, and was usually the last one to finish her work, which was about 8 o'clock in the evening during the fall and winter months and 9 o'clock in spring and summer. During all of the years that claimant lived in the household of her brother, she was in direct charge of the management thereof, and that situation remained unchanged until 1913, when the said August C. Heisler, now deceased, married, and thereupon the claimant moved away.

There is abundant testimony, not alone that the services were rendered at the request of the deceased, but that the deceased had agreed to pay for same. For example, Albert Schrock, a witness for plaintiff, testified that he was a nephew of the deceased as well as of the claimant; that he lived but a short distance from the deceased's farm, and was a frequent visitor at his uncle's home during his lifetime. He testified that

He had often heard his uncle speak of paying the claimant. "He promised to pay her $20 per month as long as she kept house for him, as long as he was not married. I heard him say that about one month after his mother died. * * * My brother George was present and Mrs. Rouden."

According to another witness for plaintiff, one Edmond Smith, who also was a nephew of the deceased and of the claimant and who lived in the same neighborhood with the deceased:

His uncle often said "he would pay her. I have heard him say many times, such as this, 'Don't you worry, Carrie; don't worry; I will pay you for what you are doing.'"

And there is testimony to the same effect by Alma Joba and Mattie Heisler, nieces of the deceased, and by George T. Schrock, a nephew of the deceased, each of whom for many years lived upon the place and were members of said Heisler's household.

The lowest estimate of the reasonable value of the services rendered by claimant, as testified to by any of the witnesses, was $5 per week, and the highest was $8 per week.

Four or five witnesses for claimant who lived upon the premises with the deceased during his lifetime testified that at no time did they see the said Heisler pay any money to claimant, or did they ever hear him say that he had ever paid the claimant anything for her services.

The jury returned a verdict for the full amount of plaintiff's claim, and judgment was rendered in accordance therewith.

I. It is assigned as error that the court erred in admitting irrelevant and incompetent testimony on behalf of the plaintiff over the objection of the defendant.

In several instances the court did permit testimony to be...