Swiger, Adm'r., v. Evans.

• Decision Date: 08 December 1914
• Citation: 75 W.Va. 236
• Parties: Swiger, Adm'r., v. Evans.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

75 W.Va. 236

Swiger, Adm'r.,

v.Evans.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted October 28. 1914.

Decided December 8, 1914.

Executors and Administrators Claims Against DecedentSupport c Parent.

A child can not recover for the support of his parent unless 1 proves an express contract entitling him to compensation, or, t proof direct, positive, and unambiguous, establishes facts and ci cumstances from which it may reasonably be inferred that thei was a clear understanding whereby the parent agreed to pay an the child expected to receive compensation.

Error to Circuit Court, Tyler County.

Action by Arlen G. Swiger, administrator, against CharU M. Evans. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant bring error.

Affirmed.

Boreman & Carter, for plaintiff in error. G. D. Smith, for defendant in error.

Robinson, Judge:

The action is one by an administrator for the recovery of a claim alleged to be due the estate from a son of the decedent. Defendant admits owing a part of the indebtedness charged. He seeks to offset the claim of the estate against him by an account which he files against the estate, the principa; part of which is a charge for keeping his mother in his lux for [period of twenty-six weeks. From a judgment in favor of le administrator, defendant prosecutes error, presenting sev-al assignments. All the points have been maturely con-Pered. With one exception they deserve no special notice m the reports. To dispose of them specifically here would be nly to reiterate well settled principles.

The trial court excluded the evidence which defendant telied on to establish the claim for keeping his mother. That widence was the testimony of a son and a daughter of defendant. They were competent to testify. But did their testimony establish a contract whereby defendant was to support his mother for ompensation? Of course it is well understood that defen ant can claim no compensation for keeping his mother exeer. on the score of a definite contract between them in this pai iciilar There is no implied obligation that the parent shall ay for support rendered by the chile1. Now, the testimony e: bluded falls short of proving a contract between defendant and his mother. The daughter testified to a loose deelarati m of the old lady that she intended to pay defendant somet ring for her board. The witness knew of no amount agreed i pon between them. The testimony of defendant 's son is as follows: '' She said she would not stay the? for nothing, sai he had to be paid and she asked him if $5 a week would be do much. He said that would be all right." This is not proo of a...