Woods v. Land

• Decision Date: 05 April 1888
• Parties: WILLIAM W. WOODS, Respondent, v. E. B. LAND, Administrator of ADAM C. WOODS, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

30 Mo.App. 176

WILLIAM W. WOODS, Respondent, v. E. B. LAND, Administrator of ADAM C. WOODS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City.

April 5, 1888

APPEAL from Platte Circuit Court, HON. JAMES M. SANDUSKY, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Statement of case by the court.

This is a contest over the following claim presented to the probate court against the estate of Adam C. Woods by William W Woods, his son:

" In Probate Court of Platte County, Missouri, to October term, A. D. 1886.

Estate of Adam C. Woods, Dr. to William W Woods.

For work done on farm and services rendered in attending to business of deceased from January 1, 1875, to January 1 1882, a period of seven years, at two hundred and forty dollars per year, sixteen hundred and eighty dollars; which should be credited with amounts received from deceased or retained from sale of produce of farm by permission of deceased at various times extending over the seven years, one hundred dollars per year, seven hundred dollars; balance due claimant, nine hundred and eighty dollars."

The claimant was more than twenty-one years of age at the commencement of the service. He was unmarried and lived with his father as a member of his family during the time of rendering the services and they were shown to be worth from twenty to twenty-five dollars per month. The only evidence of a contract offered by the claimant is the following:

McCombs testified: " In the spring of 1882 he heard Adam C Woods say that he intended to give plaintiff forty acres of land for staying with him and taking care of him and not going to Kansas; that William, at his request, had remained and worked on the farm when all the rest had left home, and William had given up his intention of going to Kansas."

Henry Brown testified: " That a few days before Adam C. Woods died, he said that he had never given William Woods anything and he intended to give him a half-interest in eighty acres of land for staying with him and caring for him, and working on the farm, and that William had only received his victuals and clothes."

J. N. Cox testified: " That, in 1885, he heard Adam C. Woods say that he intended to help William Woods, because he had stayed there and worked for him; that he had a conversation in 1885 with deceased, in which he stated that he intended to give William and Nancy something."

A. J. Conway testified: " That, in 1885, he heard Adam C. Woods say that he intended to give his daughter and William Woods eighty acres of land; that, on account of William Woods' kindness to him, having remained with him, and in consideration of services rendered to him, he was entitled to it, and he, Adam C. Woods, intended to give it to him."

E. B. Land testified: " In 1885, I heard Adam C. Woods say that he intended to give William Woods forty acres off the west eighty, as William had stayed with him and had cared for him. Adam C. Woods had a hand on the farm with William. The farm of A. C. Woods contained two hundred and forty acres, and during the years for which compensation for services is claimed in this case, was in charge of William, who managed and controlled same, and he also made a regular hand in cultivating same. William, the plaintiff, was about forty years old at the time of the rendition of the services, and was very poor. Plaintiff married in 1883, and after that time plaintiff worked on his father's farm and cultivated same on shares; that the land of deceased was heavily mortgaged during the time of these services and up to his death."

Mrs. M. J. Harris testified: " That, in 1885, she heard Adam C. Woods say that he intended to give forty acres of land to William; was to give it by will."

Robert Bartlett testified: " That he had a conversation with deceased in which he stated that he intended to give William something for his services, but was then unable to do so. Deceased also said he would give him (witness) something."

JAS. W. COBURN and TRABER & GIBSON, for the appellant.

I. In an action by a son against his father for wages after the son's arrival of age, the presumption of law is, that the sevices were gratuitous. In order to recover respondent need not show an express promise, but must affirmatively show that there was some expectation or understanding on both sides that the services were to be paid for. 26 Cent. Law Jour. 51, 184; Guenther v. Birkicht's Adm'r, 22 Mo. 439; Smith v. Myers, 19 Mo. 434; Hart v. Hart's Adm'r, 41 Mo. 445; Cowell v. Roberts, 79 Mo. 218; Gardner's Adm'r v. Schooley, 25 N.J.Eq. 150; Prickett v. Prickett, 20 N.J.Eq. 478; 15 Cent. Law Jour. 26; Cooper v. Cooper, 3 Ill.App. 492; Sanders v. Waggonseller, 19 Pa.St. 248; Luney v. Vantyne, 40 Vt. 501.

II. There must have been such an understanding or expectation at the commencement of the services. 26 Cent. Law Jour. 51; Gardner's Adm'r v. Schooley, 25 N.J.Eq. 150; 15 Cent. Law Jour. 26, and cases cited.

III. The proof must be clear, direct, and explicit, so as to leave no doubt as to the understanding and intention of the parties. 26 Cent. Law Jour. 54, 184; 3 Wait's Act. and Def. 584, and cases cited; Duffey v. Duffey, 44 Pa.St. 398; Sullivan v. Sullivan, 6 Hun (N. Y.) 658. And loose declarations will not be regarded as evidence of such an agreement to rebut the legal presumption. 26 Cent. Law Jour. 54, 184; 3 Wait's Act. and Def. 584; Hartman's Appeal, 3 Grant's Cases (Penn.) 234; Miller's Appeal, 100 Pa.St. 568; 100 Pa.St. 330; 57 Pa.St. 457; 1 A. 167.

IV. If the services were rendered with a view to a legacy merely, respondent cannot resort to an action of implied assumpsit. Guenther v. Birkicht's Adm'r, 22 Mo. 446; Osbourn v. Hospital, 2 Strange 728. Nor can he waive a contract, and sue upon a quantum meruit. Chambers v. King, 8 Mo. 517.

V. If plaintiff rendered the services on the strength of his father's promise to give him the forty acres of land, then he has either his action for the specific performance of the contract, or for the value of the land; and he must resort to one of them. Hiatt v. Williams, 72 Mo. 214; Sutton v. Hayden, 62 Mo. 101; Gupton v. Gupton, 47 Mo. 37.

ANDERSON & CARMACK, for the respondent.

I. The rule of law in England, and probably in some of the states in this country, that in cases of this kind, a plaintiff cannot recover unless he shows a special or express contract entered into with his parent for compensation or wages, is not the law in Missouri. But our courts hold what is more in consonance with justice, that in all such cases, it is a question for the jury to determine, from all the circumstances, whether the services were rendered under an implied contract for compensation. Hart v. Hart's Adm'r, 41 Mo. 445; Smith v. Myers, 19 Mo. 433; Guild v. Guild, Adm'r, 15 Pick. 129.

II. Each case, of this class of cases, must necessarily depend on its own special circumstances, as, whether the services were rendered voluntarily or at the request of the recipient, the circumstances in life of the parties, the nature of the services rendered, and all the facts affecting the case, and it is not necessary to prove an express promise on the part of the parent to pay, or produce proof of a specific contract for that purpose. Guenther v. Birkecht, 22 Mo. 439.

III. The question as to whether there was an implied promise and a quantum meruit in this case, was submitted to the court sitting as a jury under proper and correct declarations of law, and the judgment of that court should be affirmed unless there is no evidence to sustain its findings. Miller v. Brenicke, 83 Mo. 163; Cunningham v. Snow, 82 Mo. 587.

IV. When the evidence is conflicting the appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court on the ground that they are against the weight of evidence. Roach v. Colbern, 76 Mo. 652. But where there is any evidence to support a verdict it will not be disturbed. Huckshorn v. Hartwig, 81 Mo. 649; Meyer v. McCabe, 73 Mo. 237.

V. The principles embodied in the declarations of law given for the respondent have been approved by the Supreme Court of this state in Hart v. Hart's Adm'r, 41 Mo. 445; Smith v. Myers, 19 Mo. 443.

VI. The third declaration of law asked for by appellant was properly refused by the trial court because there was no evidence even tending to establish it. Cox v. Tipton, 18 Mo.App. 450.

VII. This is an action at law on an implied assumpsit. It was tried as such in two trial courts below, and appellant for the first time in this court, has made the...