Stewart v. Waterman
| Decision Date | 12 February 1924 |
| Citation | 123 A. 524 |
| Parties | STEWART v. WATERMAN. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Orleans County Court; Julius A. Willcox, Judge.
Action by Mina Stewart against Josepb E. Waterman. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Affirmed, and cause remanded.
Argued before WATSON, C. J., and POWERS, TAYLOR, SLACK, and BUTLER, JJ.
W. W. Reiiden, of Barton, and E. A. Cook, of Orleans, for plaintiff.
Frank D. Thompson, of Barton, and Searles & Graves, of St. Johnsbury, for defendant.
The plaintiff sues to recover for labor performed by her for the defendant between April, 1809, and October, 1921, and for money claimed to have been loaned the defendant in 1909. The complaint is the common counts in assumpsit, and the plea the general issue. The trial was by jury, with verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant argues exceptions saved to the overruling of his motion for a directed verdict and numerous exceptions to the charge. The principal questions raised by the several exceptions are: (1) Whether, on the evidence, there was a legal contract to pay for the services in question; and (2) whether the plaintiff's cause of action was extinguished by certain payments evidenced by receipts in full settlement for such services.
The defendant employed the plaintiff as housekeeper in April, 1899. He was a widower, then 48 years old, with his father and four children in his family. The plaintiff was a single woman, then 24 years old. It was uncontroverted that the original contract of hiring was express. The only disagreement in respect thereto was the agreed price per week. The duration of the service was not specified. It fairly appeared from the plaintiff's testimony brought out in cross-examination that some five months after she commenced work for the defendant their relations had become intimate, and that such intimacy continued while the plaintiff remained in the defendant's family.
Early in October it was mutually agreed that they should go to the home of plaintiff's brother, in Walden, on a visit, and announce on their return that they were married. As part of this arrangement it was agreed that each should be as true to the other in every way as though they had been lawfully married. According to this arrangement, on their return from Walden it was given out that they had been married, they introduced each other as husband and wife, and it was understood by their relatives and the community generally that they were in fact what they pretended to be—husband and wife. In short, the plaintiff testified that she considered herself the defendant's "honest wife, if he did as he agreed to—as he promised to."
The plaintiff was paid in full for her services prior to this arrangement. The only payments thereafter were the two payments of $100 each which we shall have occasion to refer to later. At least after their return from Walden the intimacy of the parties was unrestrained. Some three years thereafter the plaintiff gave birth to a child, the issue of their illicit relations. There was talk of a legal marriage when the plaintiff's condition was discovered, but for reasons concerning which there was a conflict in the testimony there was no change in their relations. The child was reared in the defendant's family, and bore his name. The plaintiff's mother lived with her and the defendant about 14 years as a member of the family, doing some work, but paying no board. In 1909 the plaintiff left the defendant and went to a brother's in Charleston. There was a disagreement in the testimony as to her reason for leaving. The plaintiff assigned as reasons both that the defendant would not pay her for her work, and that he drank and acted so she was driven out. During this absence the defendant paid her $100, and procrued a receipt therefor, acknowledging full settlement for all services and labor. The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the defendant repeatedly solicited her to go back to work for him, and told her if she would do so he would deed her the place where he lived. In one place she testified in answer to the question. "What did he say to you about leaving you a house for your pay up to that time?" "He told me, 'If you go back and work for me I will deed you the residence at Evansville.'" She also testified in the same connection that the defendant renewed his promise to marry her, and that, relying upon what he said, she went back. The plaintiff was away from the defendant's about two months and during a portion of that time had worked for another party. Her evidence tended to show that there were repeated talks after her return about pay for her work, in which the defendant promised to deed her property therefor, but that the promises were not kept; that the last occasion was about a year before the final leaving, at which time the defendant promised to deed her the place where they were then living at Willoughby as pay for her labor during the time she had been there if she would continue to work, and that for a matter of two to five years before leaving, or, as she characterized it, before she was "turned out," disagreements occurred caused by the defendant's failure to pay for her labor. The plaintiff's evidence left the occasion for leaving the defendant in October, 1921, a matter of conjecture. She admitted in cross-examination that her conduct with a boarder led to a talk between her and the defendant in which the latter told her to vacate his house, and that she left the same day. About a week later she received from the defendant through the mail a savings bank book representing a deposit of $100 that the defendant had made for her benefit. When the plaintiff left she took with her various articles of household furniture and furnishings which the defendant claimed as his. Threats of prosecution were made, and some of the articles were returned. Finally, the defendant had an interview with the plaintiff on January 10, 1922, which he referred to as a settlement, as a result of which he wrote and the plaintiff signed a writing acknowledging receipt of the $100 and other valuable considerations "in full settlement for all labor for 23 years."
Respecting the claim for money loaned to the defendant, the evidence clearly made that issue a jury question. The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that on her return in 1909 the defendant borrowed what was left of the $100 paid to her during her absence, expressly promising to repay it. It did not appear that the loan was made with any reference to their continued cohabitation. That it was so made might possibly be inferred from the circumstances; but, if so, it would present a question for the jury. See Robbins v. Potter, 11 Allen (Mass.) 588. This item of plaintiff's specification seems to have been lost sight of in framing the motion for a directed, verdict. As the plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury on this claim at least, it follows that the motion was properly overruled. However, the same questions respecting the right to recover for services were raised by exceptions to the charge and are for consideration.
The parties are in substantial agreement respecting the law applicable to the facts of the case. The disagreement arises mainly with reference to the effect of the evidence. It is practically conceded that on the facts admitted by the plaintiff there could be no recovery in the absence of an express contract to pay for the services. It is a well-settled rule that a woman who knowingly and voluntarily lives in illicit relations with a man cannot recover on an implied contract for services rendered him during such relationship. Not only does the relationship as of husband and wife negative that of master and servant, but, such cohabitation being in violation of principles of morality and chastity, and so against public policy, the law will not imply a promise to pay for services rendered under such circumstances. Nor is a recovery permitted where an express agreement to pay for the services is shown, if the contract was made in contemplation of the illicit relationship. In other words, if the services for which compensation is claimed were incidental to the meretricious relationship existing between the parties, or the contract therefor was made in contemplation of such relationship, and therefore tainted by the illegal consideration, there can be no recovery. But the mere fact that the parties to the contract are maintaining illicit sexual relations does not render the contract illegal. Immoral or criminal as their conduct may be, there is no legal inhibition against their contracting with each other; and if their contract is not infected by the illegality of the relation, it is held to be enforceable. That is, if the claim for compensation grows solely out of lawful services actually rendered, and no part thereof depends on or has reference to the meretricious relationship, the law does not forbid a recovery. For...
To continue reading
Request your trial