Roycroft v. Nellis, 29.

• Citation: 188 A. 20
• Decision Date: 20 November 1936
• Docket Number: No. 29.,29.
• Parties: ROYCROFT v. NELLIS.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

188 A. 20

ROYCROFT
v.
NELLIS.

No. 29.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 20, 1936.

188 A. 20

188 A. 21

Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Joseph N. Ulman, Judge.

Action by James Nellis against Mary A. Roycroft, administratrix of the estate of Andrew Gummer, late of Baltimore City, deceased. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C. J., and URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL, SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.

Harry Leeward Katz, of Baltimore, for appellant.

David J. Markoff, of Baltimore, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Baltimore City Court upon the verdict of a jury in favor of James Nellis, the appellee. The declaration contains six common counts, one of which is "for work done and materials provided by plaintiff for defendant's decedent at his request." The amended bill of particulars filed in connection therewith shows the basis of the plaintiff's claim to be for services rendered Andrew Gummer, appellant's decedent, from May 15, 1932, to June 24, 1935, consisting in preparing his meals, undressing, bathing, and dressing him, giving him alcoholic rubs several times a week, applying medicine to his legs and dressing them with bandages, and in general, acting as an orderly in seeing to his daily and nightly needs and comforts, which services required his constant attendance, and also consisted in keeping his living quarters clean, doing his washing and ironing, acting as a companion and running errands and rendering all service required by decedent at $15 per week, no part of which was paid by the employer during his lifetime.

Andrew Gummer was a bachelor, approximately 53 years of age, and lived in Baltimore City all his life. From childhood he had been a cripple and was required to use crutches. Four years prior to his death on June 28, 1935, he was not engaged in business and lived on Rose street until November, 1932, at which time he moved to the second story of what might be described as a two-room apartment in a house on Fleet street. During the last six months of his residence on Rose street and throughout the time he resided on Fleet street, appellee lived with him and allegedly rendered services for which he claimed compensation in this suit.

During the course of the trial, appellant reserved five exceptions to the rulings of the trial court, the first four of which relate to rulings upon evidence, while the fifth concerns its action upon the prayers. We will at the outset consider the first group of these exceptions. One of the plaintiff's witnesses, Mrs. Gladys Boll, who lived on the first floor of the house in which Andrew Gummer lived throughout the year 1934 and until his death in 1935, had testified at length concerning the character of services Nellis performed for him. She saw Nellis and Gummer daily and often conversed with Gummer. Plaintiff's counsel then asked her to tell some of the things she recalled with regard to those conversations. Her answer was that she used to ask him if he did not have any family or relatives, and he replied, "Yes, but none of my people visit me." Appellant objected to the answer and moved that it be stricken out, but the motion was overruled. We find no error in that ruling. The answer seems to be responsive, but, even if it were not, we fail to see how appellee was injured by it, in view of the further fact that other witnesses testified without contradiction that Gummer's relatives did not visit him.

In answer...