Harlan v. Willard

JAMES, J.

Plaintiff by the judgment herein was determined to be the owner of one-half of the property of the estate of C. A. Willard, deceased. It was decreed that defendants held the same in trust for her benefit. Prom that judgment this appeal is taken.

In 1901 the plaintiff was employed as a waitress in a restaurant and was then twenty years of age. 0. A. Willard was then of the age of forty-one years. Prior to his acquaintanceship with the plaintiff he had been married and divorced and there were two children of that marriage, to wit, Edgar H. Willard and Dorothea Laura Blodgett, appellants here. According to a statement made by Willard to the plaintiff (as to the correctness of which no dispute is shown in the record), Willard’s first wife had remarried and Laura Blodgett, the daughter, had been adopted by her stepfather when about the age of ten years. After forming the acquaintance with the plaintiff, Willard began to pay particular attention to her and frequently took her to places of amusement. Sometimes a married sister of the plaintiff accompanied the two; at other times they went alone. About a month after the acquaintanceship began, Willard, according to the testimony of the plaintiff, made a proposal to the plaintiff which is best shown by presenting a narrative of her testimony on that point: “Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Willard about becoming his housekeeper? A. I did. We were dining out, but I do not remember where. He wanted to know if I would be willing to come and keep house for him; be his housekeeper. He told me if I would come and be his housekeeper and help him and stay as long as he lived, that her would furnish me a home and my clothing, and take care of me in case of illness, and at his death he would leave me half of anything that he had. Q. What did you say at that time, if anything? A. Well, I would not give any definite answer. I wanted to think it over. Q. Did you ever discuss the matter

[196]

at a further time? A. Often after that. Q. Give as nearly as possible these conversations and your replies. A. Well, they were a[l practically the same. He wanted that I should keep house for him and do what any housekeeper would do. There was nothing more than I told you. He wanted me to do what any housekeeper is supposed to do in keeping house; to cook, wash dishes, sweep and dust, and take care of him if he was sick, but there was nothing else mentioned.” Plaintiff testified further that, after considering the proposal for some time, she accepted the offer. Por a while the three, Willard, plaintiff, and her sister, jointly occupied a set of apartments, Willard making use of one bedroom, the two women another, and all having their meals together. The housework was attended to by plaintiff and her sister. Later on, the plaintiff resided with Willard in one of a set of fiats owned by him and continued to perform the household duties agreed upon, and continued to so perform them for seventeen years and up to the time of Willard’s death; she bestowed much personal attention and painstaking care upon the latter, who was at times addicted to the excessive use of intoxicating liquors. Willard’s business was that of a saloon-keeper. Prom about the year 1910 on the couple lived in a house toward the building of which plaintiff contributed some money which she had received from the sale of a lot. Plaintiff testified to repeated statements made by Willard of his intention to fulfill his agreement to divide his property equally between her and his son Edgar. She testified that he had said because his daughter Dorothea had been adopted by her stepfather, that she was no longer his child and that he did not want her to have anything of his. Other witnesses testified to having heard Willard assert that he intended to leave to the plaintiff one-half of his property, and Mrs. Scott,' the sister of the plaintiff, testified to having been present when Willard made the original proposal to her sister in the terms already stated. It is not argued, and upon the evidence the case admits of no such contention, that the finding of the court as to the making of the contract in the manner and upon the conditions described by the plaintiff is not abundantly supported. The fact that plaintiff admitted that she had during the years mentioned lived with Willard as his wife is made the ground for the claim that the contract as