Williams v. Bent

• Decision Date: 05 October 1949
• Docket Number: 17865.
• Parties: WILLIAMS et al. v. BENT.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

87 N.E.2d 883

119 Ind.App. 374

WILLIAMS et al. v. BENT.

No. 17865.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

October 5, 1949

Franklin W. Plummer, Wabash, Alfred H. Plummer, Wabash, Plummer &amp Plummer, Wabash, for appellants.

Howard E. Plummer, Wabash, for appellee.

DRAPER Judge.

The appellee is a tax consultant. For several years prior to 1937 the appellants were engaged in various business ventures individually and in connection with others or with each other, and the appellee attended to their tax work. Those services were rendered under an express contract.

In the fall of 1937 the appellants began to operate a pool hall and gambling emporium in the city of Wabash, as partners. The appellee was verbally requested to do the tax work for said partnership. He undertook to do so and also continued to do the other tax work as before.

The business prospered and the appellee continued to do all of the tax work until December 31, 1946, when the relationship was terminated and the appellee requested payment for services rendered in connection with the partnership business. Payment was refused, and he was awarded a judgment for $885 for services rendered.

The appellants did not at any time expressly agree to pay the appellee for services rendered in connection with the partnership, but we think the evidence most favorable to the appellee is sufficient to establish the existence of an implied agreement to pay the reasonable value thereof. It seems to us that the services requested were of such a character and were rendered under such circumstances as to justify the inference that extra compensation was contemplated by both the employer and the employee.

The appellee undertook the work at the request of one of the appellants. The evidence reveals conversations from which it was or should have been known to the appellants that the appellee expected payment therefor. Under those circumstances he was permitted to perform valuable services for about nine years.

The general rules announced in Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R Co. v. Marable, 1920, 189 Ind. 278, 126 N.E. 849, upon which appellants principally rely along with Schroeder v. City of New Albany, 1930, 91 Ind.App. 62, 170 N.E. 83, are applicable to this case and have our complete approval, but neither of those cases require the reversal of this one. The appellee here was not, as in those cases, a full time employce. He did tax work for appellants and others. The...