Brown v. Cummings

7 Citing cases

  1. Traversa v. Smith

    437 A.2d 1358 (R.I. 1981)   Cited 6 times
    In Traversa v. Smith, 437 A.2d 1358 (RI. 1981), for example, the Plaintiff was specifically told, on repeated occasions, that he would be "taken care of" in the decedent's will. That plaintiff, over a period of eleven years, had expended 5,500 hours ministering to the decedent.

    The defendant contends that plaintiff is entitled to no more than the amount of the legacy. In support of this position, defendant cites Brown v. Cummings, 27 R.I. 369, 62 A. 378 (1905), in which this court held that in the absence of evidence, services rendered between members of the same family are presumed to be gratuitous. The executor further argues that even if plaintiff did expect compensation, this expectation was fulfilled by the $1,000 legacy.

  2. Almeida v. Mello

    208 A.2d 397 (R.I. 1965)

    In overruling the exception this court pointed out certain evidence contrary to the presumption which necessitated submitting the case to the jury, and in that connection observed that the plaintiff was not the daughter of the decedent. Prior to that discussion the court commented on the presumption in question and quoted from the following cases: Newell v. Lawton, 20 R.I. 307; Brown v. Cummings, 27 R.I. 369; Fuller v. Mowry, 18 R.I. 424; White v. Almy, 34 R.I. 29. In none of those cases was the presumption limited as plaintiff here contends.

  3. Wasson v. Wasson

    73 Idaho 359 (Idaho 1953)   Cited 7 times

    However, this presumption of gratuity is rebuttable and the question of whether a claim by a parent against a child for services is to be allowed must be determined from all the facts and the circumstances of the case. The facts in this case show the presumption of gratuity has been overcome and that there was an implied promise to pay. 71 C.J. 70, Sec. 32; In re Fox' Estate, 131 W. Va. 429, 48 S.E.2d 1, 7 A.L.R.2d 8, etc.; Winkler v. Killian, 141 N.C. 575, 54 S.E. 540, 115 Am.St.Rep. 694; Ellis v. Cox, 176 N.C. 616, 97 S.E. 468; Nesbitt v. Donoho, 198 N.C. 147, 150 S.E. 875; Patterson v. Rehfuss, 250 Ala. 508, 35 So.2d 330; Brown v. Cummings, 27 R.I. 369, 62 A. 378; Ibach v. Hoffman, 184 Or. 296, 198 P.2d 266; Peters v. Poro's Estate, 96 Vt. 95, 117 A. 244, 25 A.L.R. 615; Wence v. Wykoff, 52 Iowa 644, 3 N.W. 685; In re Bishop's Estate, 130 Iowa 250, 106 N.W. 637; Snyder v. Nixon, 188 Iowa 779, 176 N.W. 808; Waker v. Bergen, 132 A. 669, 4 N.J.Misc. 332; Johnston v. Johnston, 182 Wn. 573, 47 P.2d 1048. A family within the meaning of the family relations doctrine is defined as a collective body of persons who form one household under one head and one domestic government.

  4. Frain v. Brady

    134 A. 645 (R.I. 1926)   Cited 4 times

    Defendant attempted to meet plaintiff's claim by evidence of statements of plaintiff after Mrs. Malloy's death when it was expected that she would be buried in Potter's field, that "her soul don't owe me (plaintiff) a cent"; and further, by contending that the evidence showed that plaintiff was acting solely from motives of charity and never expected to receive payment or intended to make any charge for services until after Mrs. Malloy's death and the discovery of the four thousand dollar deposit. This court in cases involving contracts for services, — Fuller v. Mowry, 18 R.I. 424; Brown v. Cummings, 27 R.I. 369; Hobin v. Hobin, 33 R.I. 249; Chapman v. Inds. Trs.Co., 43 R.I. 544, — has said that the test of plaintiff's right to recover is the reasonable and proper expectation of both plaintiff and the deceased that plaintiff would be compensated. Mrs. Malloy's expectation to compensate plaintiff was explicitly testified to but from appearances and acts of Mrs. Malloy a jury might find that plaintiff regarded the promises as the idle vaporings of a destitute old woman, that she gave no thought of right to compensation and expected that she had no claim. If, acting under an erroneous belief about Mrs. Malloy's financial condition, which belief was not induced by any fraud on Mrs. Malloy's part, plaintiff intended her services as an absolute gratuity regardless of the actual fact of Mrs. Malloy's financial condition, she could not recover after Mrs. Malloy's death and the discovery of funds.

  5. Chapman v. Industrial Trust Co.

    43 R.I. 544 (R.I. 1921)   Cited 5 times

    This testimony, standing by itself, is too slight to rebut the presumption arising in such cases that services rendered or benefits conferred by members of the same household to or upon each other are prompted by affection or good will rather than from an expectation of payment." Brown v. Cummings, 27 R.I. 369, was a suit by a stepdaughter to recover for services rendered in nursing her stepfather during his last sickness. The court said: "In the absence of any evidence the presumption arises that services rendered between members of the same family are gratuitous, but this presumption yields to evidence so that `if the circumstances in which the services are rendered are such as to show a reasonable and proper expectation that compensation is to be made, the plaintiff will be entitled to recover.' Fuller v. Mowry, 18 R.I. p. 426.

  6. White v. Almy

    34 R.I. 29 (R.I. 1912)   Cited 11 times
    In White the presumption was considered where a son-in-law sought compensation for services rendered to his mother-in-law living in his household.

    "In Newell v. Lawton, 20 R.I. 307, 308, the court in sustaining a nonsuit, say: 'The evidence shows no express agreement on the part of testatrix to pay for these benefits, nor circumstances affording ground for a reasonable expectation on the part of plaintiff that compensation was to be made.' "In Brown v. Cummings, 27 R.I. 369, the plaintiff had not lived with deceased before the services, but the court say, p. 370, 'If she was a member of his family at that time, then the circumstances in which the services were rendered should have been submitted to the consideration of the jury for their determination as to whether they do or not show a reasonable and proper expectation that compensation was to be made.'" See, also, in support of the same general doctrine, — 2 Page, Contracts, p. 1192 and note 16: Murrell v. Studstill, 104 Ga. 604; Neish v. Gannon, 198 Ill. 219; Warren v. Warren, 105 Ill. 568; Morton v. Rainey, 82 Ill. 215; Jones v. Adams, 81 Ill. App. 183; Collins v. Williams, 21 Ind. App. 227; Ridler v. Ridler, 103 Ia. 470; Gorrell v. Taylor, 107 Tenn. 568; Westcott v. Westcott, 69 Vt. 234; Broderick v. Broderick, 28 W. Va. 378; Spencer v. Spencer, 181 Mass. 471.

  7. Hobin v. Hobin

    80 A. 595 (R.I. 1911)   Cited 6 times

    In Newell v. Lawton, 20 R.I. 307, 308, the court in sustaining a nonsuit, say "The evidence shows no express agreement on the part of testatrix to pay for these benefits nor circumstances affording ground for a reasonable expectation on the part of plaintiff that compensation was to be made." In Brown v. Cummings, 27 R.I. 369, the plaintiff had not lived with deceased before the services, but the court say, p. 370, "If she was a member of his family at that time, then the circumstances in which the services were rendered should have been submitted to the consideration of the jury for their determination as to whether they do or not show a reasonable and proper expectation that compensation was to be made." The appellants' motions for a nonsuit and for the direction of a verdict for the appellants, were properly denied.