Willman v. Gustafson

PETERS, P. J.

This appeal approaches the frivolous. The action was commenced by plaintiff, defendant’s former housekeeper, to recover the alleged reasonable value of her services over a period of four and one-half years. The trial court found that plaintiff had been fully paid for her services, and, accordingly, gave judgment for defendant.

The theory of plaintiff, at the trial and on this appeal, is that she came to work for defendant on March 1, 1935, as his housekeeper; that she continued in defendant’s employ for about four and one-half years; that neither at the time of the employment nor at any other time during the employment was any definite agreement entered into as to compensation ; that under such circumstances, plaintiff having admittedly performed services for defendant at his request, defendant is now obligated to pay her the reasonable value of such services, which she claims to be $75 a month.

It is no doubt the law that where services are rendered by one person at the request of another, and the promisor and promisee are not related, a promise to pay the reasonable value of such services will be implied. It is also the law, and admitted to be such by appellant, that no such prom

[832]

ise can be implied if there is a special agreement to pay a fixed sum. It may be conceded that plaintiff testified to facts which, if believed by the trier of the facts, would have supported findings in her favor on her theory of the case. The difficulty is that her testimony was directly contradicted by defendant and others, and that this evidence supports the finding that plaintiff has been fully paid for all services rendered.

On such an appeal all conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate and reasonable inferences indulged in to support the judgment, if possible.

(Crawford

v.

Southern Pacific Co.,

3 Cal.2d 427 [45 P.2d 183];

Bellon

v.