Weaver v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 02 December 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 13047.,13047. |
| Parties | WEAVER v. WILSON. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Miller County; Jack G. Slate, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by B. W. Weaver against C. C. Wilson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Irwin & Haley, of Jefferson City, and W. S. Stillwell, of Tuscumbia, for appellant.
R. T. White, of Eldon, and Barney Reed, of Ulman, for respondent.
This is an action to recover pay for services alleged to have been rendered as a farm hand. Plaintiff, an uncle of defendant's wife, was an old man, single, without a home, and in feeble health. He was visiting his brother, defendant's father-in-law, where defendant and his wife met him when they were visiting there on New Year's Day, 1915. Plaintiff went home with them for a visit. According to his own evidence, he went there as a visitor and remained as such, and as a member of the family, for several months, and then began to do the chores and other light jobs about the place. Nothing was said about how much longer he was going to prolong his visit, nor was anything said about his receiving pay for what he did. He continued to stay there, being treated as a member of the family, the defendant buying his clothes and keeping him in tobacco (no account thereof being kept), until some time in July, 1917, when he went away on a visit, and, upon his return in a few days, asked defendant if there "wasn't something coming to" him. Defendant refused to pay, and he went to a neighbor's and asked him whether the latter thought he ought to have something for his work, and thereafter he left defendant's home, and some six months later brought suit.
There was a trial before a jury, and a verdict for $50 was returned.
It is well settled that where the family relation exists, as it conclusively appears it did in this case, the law implied no promise to pay for services rendered by one member of the family to another or to the common purpose of the family itself, and the presumption is that such services are rendered gratuitously. Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583, 591, 158 S. W. 83. In this case there can be no question that for a long time from and after plaintiff became a member of the family such was the status of affairs; and, if any change in the relationship arose, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to offer evidence at least tending to prove, or from which the jury could reasonably Infer, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Waddell v. Krause
-
Elstroth v. Karrenbrock
...583, 158 S. W. 83; Baker v. Lyell, 210 Mo. App. 230, 242 S. W. 703; Kingston v. Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69, 157 S. W. 1042; Weaver v. Wilson (Mo. App.) 206 S. W. 916; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561, 161 S. W. 366; Shern v. Sims (Mo. App.) 258 S. W. 1029. However, while the law will not i......
-
Brunnert v. Estate of Boeckmann
...Brunnert intended to charge, and decedent was expected to pay and knew or should have understood that payment was to be made. [Weaver v. Wilson, 206 S.W. 916.] The four years of the lease the decedent was "to do a little work for his board every year." And while this would indicate that no ......
-
Brunnert v. Boeckmann's Estate
...S. W. 404; Kingston v. Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69, 77, 157 S. W. 1042." See, also, Dobbin v. Dobbin (Mo. App.) 204 S. W. 918; Weaver v. Wilson (Mo. App.) 206 S. W. 916. It is the law that it need not be shown by direct testimony that he did so understand; it may be shown by circumstances. Mab......