Woodward v. Donnell

• Decision Date: 14 December 1909
• Citation: 123 S.W. 1004
• Parties: WOODWARD v. DONNELL.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

123 S.W. 1004

WOODWARD v. DONNELL.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 14, 1909.

1. DAMAGES (§ 6)—CERTAINTY AS TO AMOUNT —SERVICES—REASONABLE VALUE — COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

In an action to recover the value of services rendered by plaintiff's minor son as "dentist's assistant," the employment was not so common, or the value of such services so within the common knowledge of all men, that courts and juries are to be presumed to know that value without any proof thereof.

2. DAMAGES (§ 9)—SERVICES OF CHILD—REASONABLE VALUE OF—ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE —NOMINAL DAMAGES.

In an action to recover the value of services rendered by plaintiff's minor son as "dentist's assistant," where there was no evidence of the reasonable value of the services, plaintiff could only recover nominal damages.

3. PARENT AND CHILD (§§ 6, 16)—SERVICES OF CHILD—EMANCIPATION OF CHILD—QUESTION OF FACT.

In an action to recover the value of services rendered by plaintiff's minor son, it was error to exclude testimony offered to show that the son had been emancipated, and that plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for his services, that being a question of fact, and if he had been emancipated plaintiff could not recover.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Matt G. Reynolds, Judge.

Action by M. M. Woodward against Dr. T. G. Donnell. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace of the city of St. Louis, by filing a statement or petition, which sets out that on or about the 1st of January, 1905, defendant employed plaintiff's minor son as an assistant in his dental office in the city of St. Louis; that the employment continued until about the 6th of October, 1905, and his services were reasonably worth $35 a month, or $322 for the full period. Alleging a demand and refusal to pay the whole or any part of the claim, judgment is demanded for $322 and costs. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff before the justice, the case was taken on appeal to the circuit court. Upon a trial before the court, a jury having been waived, it was in evidence that the son Charles, then 18 or 19 years of age, had been working in an electrical appliance company and receiving $35 a month wages, which he collected. The defendant, who is a dentist, told plaintiff that he wanted this son to work for him, promised to give him the use of his books, material, instruments, and to pay his way through college holding out the promise of a successful future for the son. He was to teach the son the rudiments of dentistry. It appeared that a contract had been written out, but had never been signed. The young man continued in the employment of the defendant as an assistant, doing the mechanical or laboratory work, making molds, taking impressions, polishing and making crowns, the usual work connected with dentistry, such as molding teeth, polishing artificial teeth, and various services, apparently pertaining to a dentist's apprentice. While he was with the defendant he was given books and directed to read up on various matters connected with dentistry. About the 6th of October, 1905, and without any explanation or any reason given to plaintiff or to her son, the defendant discharged the son. As before stated, when previously employed as a helper in an electrical appliance concern, the son had been receiving wages amounting to $35 a month, and which he collected himself. After his discharge by the defendant he was earning from $10 to $14 a week in some employment, the nature of it not disclosed, but apparently not with a dentist. Neither the mother nor son were paid wages by defendant. Under cross-examination, the son was asked if he collected his own wages while employed by the electrical company. He said that he had done that during the whole length of his employment with that company. Objection being made by plaintiff's attorney to this line of inquiry, the court asked counsel for defendant what the object was—if it was to show that the young man had been emancipated. Counsel answered that that was the object; "that they proposed to show that he had been emancipated." Whereupon the court sustained the objection to the continuance of the line of inquiry, and defendant duly excepted. This was substantially all the testimony in the case, and at its conclusion the defendant asked an instruction that, under the statement filed, and the evidence in the case, plaintiff was not entitled to recover. This was refused, and, defendant introducing no evidence, the court found for plaintiff in the full amount sued for, and rendered judgment accordingly. Defendant, excepting, filed a motion for new trial, and, that being overruled, duly perfected an appeal to this court.

Anthony F....