Stetson v. Caverly

• Citation: 175 A. 473
• Parties: STETSON v. CAVERLY.
• Decision Date: 22 November 1934
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

175 A. 473

STETSON

v. CAVERLY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 22, 1934.

Motion and Exceptions from Superior Court, Androscoggin County.

Action in assumpsit by Cleveland M. Stetson, administrator of the estate of Katherine A. Stetson, deceased, against Orren G. Caverly, executor of the will of Erastus I. Tibbetts, deceased. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant moves for a new trial and brings exceptions.

Motion and exceptions overruled.

Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, and HUDSON, JJ.

Clifford & Clifford, of Lewiston, for plaintiff.

Ralph W. Crockett, of Lewiston, for defendant.

BARNES, Justice.

This case comes up on motion and exceptions. It is an action in assumpsit to recover, in quantum meruit, for services as housekeeper and nurse over a period of five years and forty-eight weeks, broken twice only and each time for but a few days.

Service, as housekeeper, was begun some years before the beginning of the period contemplated in the writ. In the beginning Mr. Tibbetts was a mill worker, caring for his house and grounds, a cow, and some poultry; and for a time he paid Katherine A. Stetson, plaintiff's intestate, a small wage.

Later he ceased work and required more of his housekeeper, with the result that she left his employ in 1926 and returned to her home.

After several interviews at her house, Mr. Tibbetts induced her to go back into his service.

It is admitted that the precise terms of re-engagement cannot be given, and it is agreed that Mr. Tibbetts promised her he would take care of her in his will. The evidence shows that she was a robust woman, a good housekeeper, and an excellent nurse of the old type. In December of 1927 the old gentleman suffered an apoplectic shock, characterized by his physician as "very severe." His speech was severely affected, his right side was paralyzed, and he was for a time confined to his bed, with no control of elimination.

After some weeks he regained strength sufficient, to sit in a chair, and in the course of time was able to get around the house with help. The doctor testified that he needed a great deal of care, had to be watched, from danger of falling, and that it was very difficult for him to eat.

On the 14th of December, 1927, he made a will, leaving to Mrs. Stetson all his real estate, "for the term of her natural life, to occupy the same, or to rent and receive the income"; also the sum of $3,000.

Many witnesses testified to Mrs. Stetson's statements that she was not to receive wages, but was to be taken care of through the provisions of her employer's will.

Some of the conversations, one as late as in 1929, were testified to as having been had in the presence of Mr. Tibbetts.

It is in the record that in the winter of 1928 Mr. Tibbetts said, in the presence of Mrs. Stetson and the witness: "Katie, I have made my will, and I have left you $3,500 in money and also the home place—you have been well taken care of."

About the 1st of June, 1931, a professional nurse was required. Mr. Tibbetts was then in a condition of pitiable helplessness.

For a week the nurse directed the care of the patient, Mrs. Stetson leaving the house but twice, on one occasion to visit her son then in a hospital.

She was the sole caretaker for a period of about six weeks after the "second shock," then sickened, and died August 17, 1931.

Thus the devise and legacy to her lapsed, and we have to consider the claim of her administrator to recover for her estate, in quantum meruit, the fair value of her services performed between the time of her return to service and her fatal illness.

The jury returned a verdict of $3,045.

Defendant's counsel does not discuss the amount of the verdict, and that feature is not in issue.

His contention is that she rendered the services proven for the privilege of a home and under an agreement with Mr. Tibbetts that he would provide for her in his will, and that the evidence, as matter of law, does not warrant a verdict for the plaintiff.

On the motion for new trial, the court is convinced that, unless evidence incurably prejudicial is found to have been admitted over exception, or that exception to a portion of the judge's charge should be sustained, the verdict will stand.

The exceptions are ten in number, and their consideration requires a recital of certain procedure in probate of the Stetson estate.

On September 8, 1931, the plaintiff, Katherine's son, qualified as administrator of his mother's estate.

September 23, 1931, Mr. Tibbetts executed his last will, making legacies to people of his blood, Edith G. Caverly, a half-sister being residuary legatee.

September 25, 1931, this Mrs. Caverly was duly appointed conservatrix of the estate of Mr. Tibbetts.

Bill for $6,123, balance for Katherine's services, was presented to the conservatrix, on or about October 1, 1931.

Inventory of estate of Mrs. Stetson, containing no item of bill payable to the estate of plaintiff's intestate, and with affidavit of Stetson, administrator, that it "contains a true Inventory of all estate of said Katherine A. Stetson that has come to his possession or knowledge," was filed on or about March 23, 1932; the same showing nothing to distribute.

A first...