Salvas v. Jussaume

• Decision Date: 14 March 1929
• Docket Number: No. 6525.,6525.
• Citation: 145 A. 97
• Parties: SALVAS v. JUSSAUME et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

145 A. 97

SALVAS

v. JUSSAUME et al.

No. 6525.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 14, 1929.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Kent County; Herbert L. Carpenter, Judge.

Action by Charles E. Salvas, executor, against Albert Jussaume and others. Verdict was directed for defendants, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled, and case remitted for entry of judgment on the verdict.

Archambault & Archambault and George Roche, all of Providence, for plaintiff.

James O. McManus, Joseph W. Grimes, and William H. Mulligan, all of Providence, for defendants.

BARROWS, J. In this action of assumpsit to recover money alleged to have been paid by plaintiff's testatrix without consideration, the court, on motion, directed a verdict for defendants at the close of plaintiff's case, during which two witnesses only were heard, to wit, plaintiff and defendant Albert called by plaintiff as a witness. The case is here on exception to the action of the trial court in directing the verdict.

The facts are not disputed. Plaintiff is executor of his mother's will. The mother, Marie B. Salvas, prior to June 8, 1925, had worked. She was 74 years old, and on various occasions prior to said date, when out of work, she had been given her food and room in defendants' home. On the above date she had concluded to stop working, and made a written agreement with defendants reciting that she "has become aged and feeble and is desirous of retaining the care bestowed upon her by the said Albert and Marie Elise Jussaume for her remaining years." The agreement further recited the payment for account of defendants of $700, in return for which they agreed to keep her "in their home as a member of the family as in the past and to furnish and provide said Marie Blanchard Salvas with all necessary food and provisions during her remaining years and until her death." The extent of defendants obligations in keeping Marie in defendants' home is not clear, and recourse may be had to evidence to ascertain the intent of the parties. Hill v. Carr, 78 N. H. 458, 101 A. 525. In this instance the keep was to be such as she had in the past. The evidence showed that prior to the agreement she had "feed and a room." Marie herself said, at the time of making the contract. "If ever I am sick I will go to the hospital and be taken care of." Marie continued to live with defendants for nearly two years. On March 18, 1927, she needed medical care and nursing. There is no evidence that she was not in full possession of her mental faculties. She talked of leaving defendants' home to go to a hospital, and defendants told her they would carry her at any time she wished. Just before March 18, 1927, changing her mind about the hospital, she proposed that defendants should take entire care of her and pay all bills, receiving therefor $400. This they declined to do, but agreed for $300 to take entire care of her except as to payments for doctor's bills and medicines. She accepted this proposition, paid them the $300, and entered into another written agreement, reciting the first one (her copy of which she evidently destroyed) and the additional payment. In the second agreement defendants promised to furnish her "suitable and sufficient board, nursing, meat, drink, washing and lodging and apparel and all other necessaries during her lifetime," except medical care and medicines. The last clause of the new agreement recites that no other charges were to be made by defendants against her for...