Baker v. Armstrong

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Baker v. Armstrong

6 R.I. Dec. 91

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 12, 1930

DocketNo. 1325

StatusPublished

This text of 6 R.I. Dec. 91 (Baker v. Armstrong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. Armstrong, 6 R.I. Dec. 91 (R.I. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

CAPOTO STO, J.

This action is brought by the plaintiff to recover for services alleged to have been rendered the deceased Sarah M. Tefft from September 1, 1922 to December 1, 1925, a period of 1,185 days at $1 a day, or $1,185. The deceased was 80 years of age and lived alone. The plaintiff had married -Mrs. Tefft’s cousin, a woman much older than himself, and apparently considered himself a member of the Tefft family.

The services claimed to have been performed were of a minor nature. They consisted principally of bringing in coal and wood from time to time, Shoveling snow, and running a few errands. Otherwise the old lady took care of herself. Furthermore, it was [92]*92apparent that on many days no' services were rendered at all by the plaintiff.

For plaintiff: Stephen J. Casey. For defendant: Quinn, Reman & Quinn.

There was evidence which reasonably might be construed as a promise on the part of the deceased to compensate the plaintiff in some form or another. The suspicion is very strong that the plaintiff was seeking to win the good will of the deceased in the hope of being substantially remunerated from her rather slender estate. Disappointment at times finds consolation in dollars and cents. While the plaintiff, according to the evidence, is entitled to some compensation, his claim as presented bears the earmarks of an attempt to alter the will of Mrs. Tefft through an action at law. The jury’s verdict of $500, though much smaller than what the plaintiff claims, is more liberal -by far than the circumstances warrant. After a careful consideration .of the credible evidence in the case, this Court is of the opinion that the sum of $250 amply pays the plaintiff for what he did and more nearly does justice between the parties.

If the plaintiff, within five days from the filing of this rescript, remits all of the jury’s verdict in excess of $250, the defendant’s motion for a new trial is denied, otherwise such motion is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CAPOTO STO, J.

This action is brought by the plaintiff to recover for services alleged to have been rendered the deceased Sarah M. Tefft from September 1, 1922 to December 1, 1925, a period of 1,185 days at $1 a day, or $1,185. The deceased was 80 years of age and lived alone. The plaintiff had married -Mrs. Tefft’s cousin, a woman much older than himself, and apparently considered himself a member of the Tefft family.

The services claimed to have been performed were of a minor nature. They consisted principally of bringing in coal and wood from time to time, Shoveling snow, and running a few errands. Otherwise the old lady took care of herself. Furthermore, it was [92]*92apparent that on many days no' services were rendered at all by the plaintiff.

For plaintiff: Stephen J. Casey. For defendant: Quinn, Reman & Quinn.

There was evidence which reasonably might be construed as a promise on the part of the deceased to compensate the plaintiff in some form or another. The suspicion is very strong that the plaintiff was seeking to win the good will of the deceased in the hope of being substantially remunerated from her rather slender estate. Disappointment at times finds consolation in dollars and cents. While the plaintiff, according to the evidence, is entitled to some compensation, his claim as presented bears the earmarks of an attempt to alter the will of Mrs. Tefft through an action at law. The jury’s verdict of $500, though much smaller than what the plaintiff claims, is more liberal -by far than the circumstances warrant. After a careful consideration .of the credible evidence in the case, this Court is of the opinion that the sum of $250 amply pays the plaintiff for what he did and more nearly does justice between the parties.

If the plaintiff, within five days from the filing of this rescript, remits all of the jury’s verdict in excess of $250, the defendant’s motion for a new trial is denied, otherwise such motion is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 R.I. Dec. 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-armstrong-risuperct-1930.