Friermuth v. Friermuth (1873) · DecisionDepot

Friermuth v. Friermuth

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1873 No. No. 3,690Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a complaint against a surviving partner for labor performed is sufficient, and that a promise to pay for services rendered by a son to his father may be implied if the circumstances indicate a mutual expectation of compensation.

Issues

Whether the complaint against a surviving partner for labor performed was sufficient.
Whether a promise to pay for services rendered by a son to his father can be implied under the theory of quantum meruit.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled.”

“We see no valid objection to the judgment, because it was based upon a quantum meruit.”

“But if the circumstances show that it must have been the expectation of both parties that he should receive compensation, then a promise will be implied.”

Synopsis

Action Against Surviving Partner. — An action lies against a surviving partner for work and labor performed for the firm during the life of the deceased partner, and after his death while the surviving partner is winding up the business of the firm.

Labor of Son for Father after He Attains His Majority.—If a son remains with and performs services for his father after attaining his majority, the law will not, ordinarily, imply a promise on the part of the father to make pecuniary compensation for his labor; but if the circumstances show that it was the expectation of both parties that he should receive compensation, the promise will be implied, and he may sue on a quantum meruit.

Evidence on Quantum Meruit Complaint.—Evidence of a special contract to pay a sum certain for services may be received on a complaint upon a quantum meruit, as tending to show the value of the services.

By the Court: The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled. The action was brought against the defendant as surviving partner of the firm of Friermuth & Steigleman, to recover for work and labor performed by the plaintiff, and the complaint is sufficient both in substance and form.

Upon the question of the value of the plaintiff’s services the testimony was conflicting. Aside from the evidence in reference to a special contract, there was testimony tending to prove that the services were worth seventy-five dollars per month. In such case we cannot interfere with the finding of the Court below.

We see no valid objection to the judgment, because it was based upon a quantum meruit. When a son remains with and performs services for his father after reaching his majority, the law will not ordinarily imply a promise on the part of the father to make pecuniary compensation for the labor. But if the circumstances show that it must have been the expectation of both parties that he should receive compensation, then a promise will be implied. (Andrews v. Foster, 17 Vt. 556; Dye v. Kerr, 15 Barb. 444.)

Judgment and order affirmed.

Friermuth v. Friermuth

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief