Schwab v. Pierro

• Citation: 43 Minn. 520,46 N.W. 71
• Parties: SCHWAB v PIERRO.
• Decision Date: 20 June 1890
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

43 Minn. 520

46 N.W. 71

SCHWABvPIERRO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 20, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

S. worked for P., who was his uncle, without any express agreement for compensation, but with the mutual understanding of both that he should be compensated by adequate provisions in the will of M. The latter died without making such provision. Held, that S. might recover the value of such services as upon a quantum meruit.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; YOUNG, Judge.

Penney & Rogers, for appellant.

George C. Ripley, C. E. Brennan, and S. A. Booth, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The plaintiff seeks to enforce a claim against the estate of Michael Pierro for services rendered him in his life-time. The defense relied on is that the plaintiff was a nephew of the deceased, and was a member of his family, while such services were rendered, and that they were so rendered without any promise or agreement, express or implied, on the part of the deceased, to pay for the same, and without any expectation on plaintiff's part to receive any compensation therefor. The deceased was a bachelor, and owned a hotel in Minneapolis. His only relations were plaintiff's mother, who was his sister, the plaintiff, and the defendant, executor and principal legatee, who was his cousin. About 1877, plaintiff, then a boy about 13 or 14 years of age, came with his mother, a widow, to plaintiff's house, which was then rented and managed by one Brandenburgh, as a hotel and saloon, and she went to work there for wages, and he “did chores for Brandenburgh,” and the deceased boarded at the same place. This state of things continued for several years, till the spring of 1882, when the plaintiff, then about 18 years of age, left, and went to work for wages at Chaska. In May of the same year Brandenburgh surrendered possession of the hotel to the deceased, who thereupon became proprietor, and plaintiff was notified by his mother, who remained there, to return, because he was needed to take charge of the business for his uncle. He thereupon came back, and for two years and upwards took charge of the hotel and saloon, bought the supplies, paid the bills, tended bar, and had the general care and management of the business. The deceased, however, was about the premises, and received the avails and profits of the business. At the expiration of two years and three months the plaintiff succeeded to the business, having bought the same of his uncle, but not the hotel property. In the mean time both plaintiff and his mother had continued to work for and assist the deceased in carrying on the hotel business. After that he paid rent to the deceased for the use of the hotel. What compensation his mother received during this time does not appear. It is clear enough from the evidence that the plaintiff did not understand that he was to receive no compensation for his services other than as a member of the family of the deceased, or that his board and living expenses were adequate compensation, for it is admitted that his services were reasonably worth $50 per month. Prior to the time he left for Chaska, he was living with his mother at Brandenburgh's hotel, and, though the deceased boarded there, the presumption is that he was supported by his mother; and, though there is evidence tending to show that both before and after his return from Chaska his uncle had made some expenditures for him for necessaries, there is hardly enough to show that he had assumed the responsibility of plaintiff's support, or that in...