Huntoon v. Powell

California Court of Appeal Jan 26, 1928 No. Docket No. 5078.Published

Before: Wood

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An adult child's oral promise to pay for medical services previously rendered to a parent is unenforceable under the statute of frauds, and the evidence failed to establish that the parent was a 'poor person' under Civil Code section 206.

Issues

Whether an adult child's oral promise to pay for a parent's past medical debts is binding under Civil Code section 206.
Whether the evidence supported a finding that the parent was a 'poor person' unable to maintain herself by work.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“That debt was her debt, and for it defendant could under the statute only bind himself in writing.”

“By drawing the most liberal inference from these facts it cannot be said that plaintiff has established that Mrs. Powell was a poor person unable to maintain herself by work.”

WOOD (W. J.), J., pro tem.

Plaintiff, a physician, cornmenced the action against E. A. Powell and Mrs. M. E. Powell, to recover the sum of $342.50, alleged to be due for services rendered to Mrs. M. E. Powell between July 13, 1921, and March 16, 1923. The defendant Mrs. M. E. Powell died before the trial and the action was dismissed

[658]

as to her. The trial court found that the services were rendered at the special instance and request of Mrs. Powell, who was the mother of defendant E. A. Powell; that the entire bill amounted to $442.50; and that E. A. Powell paid $100 on account on September 15, 1921. E. A. Powell by oral promise agreed on September 1, 1921, to pay plaintiff for said services, most of which had been rendered before that date. After the trial plaintiff was permitted to file an amendment to the complaint in which it is alleged “that the defendant Mrs. M. E. Powell was at all times herein mentioned a poor person, .and unable to maintain herself by work.” The court found this allegation, which was denied by E. A. Powell, to be true.

It is the contention of plaintiff that section 206 of the Civil Code justifies the court in rendering judgment upon the oral promise of defendant since that section provides that the “promise of an adult child ... is binding.” Defendant contends that the proper interpretation to be given to section 206 is that it supplies the element of consideration where such a promise is otherwise valid by being in writing, citing subdivision 2 of section 1624, wherein it is provided that “a special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another” must be in writing. This question has already been passed upon by our supreme court in

Flournoy

Van Campen,

71 Cal. 14 [12 Pac. 257], a case in which the facts were almost exactly the same as in the ease before us, the only difference being that defendant Powell paid the sum of $100 after making the oral promise. In that case the court said: “His recovery in the court below against the defendant included compensation for services rendered by him as well before as after the contract with defendant, and is not susceptible, as the record

Huntoon v. Powell

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief