Therrien v. Le Blanc

Decision Date31 March 1933
PartiesTHERRIEN v. LE BLANC.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Frederic B. Greenhalge, Judge.

Action by Laura Therrien against Arthur H. LeBlanc. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

W. D. Regan, of Lowell, for defendant.

J. D. O'Hearn, of Lowell, for plaintiff.

PIERCE, Justice.

This is an action of contract to recover compensation for personal domestic services, alleged to have been rendered to the defendant by the plaintiff from May, 1910, to March 1, 1930. The writ is dated July 1, 1930. The answer is a general denial, payment and the statute of limitations.

The material facts are in substance as follows: The defendant, in 1910, married a sister of the plaintiff and came to live at the house of his wife, which contained two rooms. The family of the wife then consisted of the plaintiff (her sister) and the wife's daughter, Yolande, the fruit of a previous marriage. The plaintiff then said to her sister and the defendant: ‘I didn't know if I was going to stay there,’ and the defendant said that she ‘could stay there and keep on working and they would take care of me and if anything should happen, that they died or anything, that there would be money left for me.’ The plaintiff thereafter continued to live at her sister's house, except for short intervals, doing some housework, and receiving her living, her clothes, and small sums of money weekly varying from $.50 to $2. Her sister and the defendant engaged in various small business undertakings and treated the plaintiff as one of the family. In 1915 she left the home of her sister and the defendant and lived with her brother and sister-in-law for three months. Then her sister and the defendant came to her and her sister said she wanted her to come back, that she needed her, and she replied that she would if they would give her some money.’ Her sister said she did not have to worry because if anything should happen to them that there would be money left for her’; and, coming home, the defendant said about the same thing. After she returned to the home of her sister she continued doing some hosework as therefore, receiving her living, her clothes and small sums of money. Some time before December, 1929, the defendant's wife became ill and the plaintiff aided in caring for her. After a conversation with his wife the defendant commenced paying the plaintiff $2 a week, and paid her such sum up to the period of the death of her sister in December, 1929. Thereafter the defendant continued paying the plaintiff $2 a week. Early in March, 1930, she left the defendant's home. The evidence warranted the finding that the defendant had not paid the plaintiff anything for six weeks prior to her leaving; that she then asked for money and he gave her $10. The defendant, in rebuttal, testified that he permitted the plaintiff to live at his home because she was the sister of his wife; that prior to the illness of his wife, he had no expectation of paying the plaintiff for any services; that he never made any claim to the plaintiff of indebtedness to him for board and lodging or clothing ; that he did expect after his wife's death to pay her $2 a week; and that he paid all he owed her.

At the close of the evidence the defendant duly moved that the judge instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. This motion was denied and the defendant duly excepted.

The judge submitted the case to the jury upon the following special...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT