Knapp v. Rose

5 Conn. Supp. 333, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 155
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided November 15, 1937·No. File #53638·Published

Opinion

BOOTH, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover remuneration for services rendered to and moneys expended for the defendant’s decedent during a period while he was a member of the decedent’s family living as one household.

Such a plaintiff in order to recover must affirmatively show either that an express contract for the remuneration existed, ■or that the circumstances under which the services and expenditures were rendered and made were such as exhibit a reasonable and proper expectation that there would be compensation therefor. (Cotter vs. Cotter, 82 Conn. 331 at 332.) In the present case the plaintiff ‘failed to establish either of [334] the foregoing situations.

Judgment is therefore rendered for the defendant upon the issues of the complaint, and for the defendant to recover of the plaintiff her costs.

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

Knapp v. Rose, 5 Conn. Supp. 333, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 155 (Colo. Ct. App. 1937).

5 Conn. Supp. 333 (Knapp v. Rose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cotter v. Cotter
73 A. 903 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1909)