Schoonover v. Vachon
| Decision Date | 06 November 1889 |
| Docket Number | 14,706 |
| Citation | 22 N.E. 777,121 Ind. 3 |
| Parties | Schoonover, Executor, v. Vachon et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Allen Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
W. P Breen, for appellant.
J. B Harper and B. F. Harper, for appellees.
Vachon and wife filed a claim against the estate of Freeman King deceased, upon which, after hearing the evidence, the court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $ 350.
The plaintiffs alleged that many years prior to his death, King, who had no children, and whose wife was the mother of the plaintiff, Mrs. Vachon, agreed with them that if they would live with him and his wife, and help them work on the farm, which King owned, and take care of him and his wife when they needed care, during their natural lives respectively, he would devise to them his farm, to be theirs after the death of himself and wife. It is averred that in pursuance of this agreement the plaintiffs went to live with the decedent and his wife, and that they performed their part of the agreement, except so far as they were prevented by the conduct of the decedent. They aver that they cleared up the land, worked upon the farm, and attended to the duties of the household, year after year for twenty years and more, until the year 1871, when the decedent gave the use of his farm to one of the plaintiffs' sons; that since that time they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, and that Mrs. Vachon did continue to work and care for the decedent and his wife until they died, the death of the latter having occurred in 1880, and of the former in 1888. It is averred that the plaintiffs rendered the services without any compensation, or hope or promise of reward other than the agreement above mentioned; that their services were reasonably worth a specified sum per annum, and that the decedent by his last will and testament, in violation of his agreement, devised his farm to the son of the plaintiffs, leaving them a small amount of property, not to exceed the sum of $ 200 in value.
It is objected that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The agreement was in parol. It related to the disposition of real estate of which the plaintiffs were never put in possession. The contract was, therefore, within the inhibition of the statute of frauds, and was incapable of being specifically enforced or of supporting an action for damages for its non-fulfilment. Wallace v. Long, 105 Ind 522 (55 Am. Rep. 222, 5 N.E. 666); Roehl v. Haumesser, 114 Ind. 311, 15 N.E. 345; Burns v. Fox, 113 Ind. 205, 14 N.E. 541. If the present action had been to enforce specific performance of the contract, or to recover damages for its non-performance, the objections to the complaint would be insurmountable, but the action is on a quantum meruit, to recover the value of the services rendered. While an agreement like the...
To continue reading
Request your trial