Turner v. Buttrick

• Decision Date: 03 July 1930
• Citation: 172 N.E. 246,272 Mass. 261
• Parties: TURNER v. BUTTRICK.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

272 Mass. 261

172 N.E. 246

TURNER

v.BUTTRICK.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

July 3, 1930.

Report from Superior Court, Worcester County; Nelson P. Brown, Judge.

Action by Ernest Turner against Allan G. Buttrick, administrator. Verdict for plaintiff. On report from the superior court, by agreement of parties, with stipulation.

Judgment on verdict.Frank P. Ryan and Abbee Fielding, both of Worcester, and Leo W. Higgins, of Quincy, for plaintiff.

Charles C. Milton and Frank L. Riley, both of Worcester, for defendant.

WAIT, J.

This case comes to us, after verdict for the plaintiff in the Superior Court, by agreement of parties, upon a report with the stipulation: ‘If the Court erred in submitting the case to the jury on the pleadings and the evidence, judgment is to be entered for the defendant, otherwise judgment is to be entered on the verdict.’

The plaintiff sued the administrator of his father's estate for services rendered the father from June, 1907, until the father's death in 1927. The declaration was in four counts, alleged to be for the same cause of action. The answer pleaded a general denial, payment, and the statute of limitations. The first count in substance set out that the father, long engaged in carrying on business as a blacksmith, in 1907 engaged the plaintiff, who with his mother and sisters was then living with the father, to work around and in the blacksmith shop for him; that the plaintiff served his time as apprentice under his father and continued to work for him at his place of business from about June 6, 1907, until the father's death on June 6, 1927, with the understanding that he should be compensated for his labor and services as blacksmith; and that the father was indebted to him in approximately $24,000. The second count alleged employment about June 6, 1907, to render services and perform labor as a blacksmith's helper and blacksmith; that it was understood and agreed that he should receive pay and compensation, and the father agreed to save his weekly wages for him; that he performed the services and labor between the dates set out and is entitled to approximately $24,000, and that the father's estate is indebted for that amount ‘for money collected, money had and received for his benefit and his use.’ The third count alleged the employment, the rendering of services; that ‘it was understood and agreed that the plaintiff would be reasonably and properly compensated for his service rendered and the labor performed by him,’ and that the estate is now indebted for a reasonable sum therefor. The fourth count alleged the employment, the rendering of service, and claims approximately $24,000 ‘for work done and materials found by the plaintiff for the defendant.’

Manifestly on one or more of the counts a recovery could be had on proof either of an express or an implied contract of employment; of performance of the express contract or of service rendered under an implied contract; of failure by the father to make the agreed payment called for by the express contract or reasonable compensation under an implied one; and of the value of the service. In addition, here, it was essential to show that the service was not merely the performance of a son's duty to a parent accepted by the parent without expectation of payment required; and, if recovery for...