Spencer v. Spencer

63 N.E. 947, 181 Mass. 471, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 896
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 22, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 63 N.E. 947 (Spencer v. Spencer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Spencer v. Spencer, 63 N.E. 947, 181 Mass. 471, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 896 (Mass. 1902).

Opinion

Holmes, C. J.

This is an action for personal services brought against the defendant by his sister, an unmarried woman. For a time she lived with him as his housekeeper for pay. Then he fell ill and she kept on for twelve years, receiving no pay, or at most, $5, which was disputed, but on the contrary working out' and using the money she earned for the support of the defendant and his children. The judge instructed the jury in substance that the plaintiff could not recover unless she had expected to be paid for her services and had believed that the defendant knew that payment was expected for them, and unless the defendant had expected to pay for them and had believed that the plaintiff expected to have pay for them. The plaintiff excepted, and brings the case here after a verdict for the defendant.

We have felt some doubt whether these instructions should be construed to mean anything more than that the parties must have understood that they were dealing on a business footing, in which case we should hesitate to sustain the exceptions merely because of a theoretical leak to which no attention was called. Even so construed the proposition would be inaccurate since it would be enough to make a contract if the defendant as a reasonable man ought to have understood that the services were rendered for pay and not merely for love. But we are of opinion that the language of the judge went further than we have suggested, and too far for us to save it, however proper the verdict may seem to have been. Of course it does not matter whether the defendant expected to pay for the services or not, the question is as to the natural import of his overt acts. Bohn Manuf. Co. v. Sawyer, 169 Mass. 477. Hobbs v. Massasoit Whip Co. 158 Mass. 194, 197. Again, it is not necessary that the defendant should have believed that the plaintiff expected pay. If as a reasonable man he should have understood from what he knew that such was the expectation, he would be bound by accepting the services. Day v. Caton, 119 Mass. 513. It is unnecessary to criticise the ruling further.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Eco East Development, Inc. v. Boston Center for the Arts, Inc.
3 Mass. Supp. 552 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 1982)
Barry v. Washburn-Garfield Co.
265 N.E.2d 378 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1970)
Burt v. Gahan
34 Mass. App. Dec. 5 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1966)
Jacobs v. Brock
406 P.2d 17 (Washington Supreme Court, 1965)
Sykes v. Smith
132 N.E.2d 168 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1956)
Sweeney v. Agnes
6 Mass. App. Dec. 117 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1954)
Stevens v. G. L. Rugo & Sons, Inc.
115 F. Supp. 61 (D. Massachusetts, 1952)
LaChance v. Rigoli
91 N.E.2d 204 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Western Asphalt Co. v. Valle
171 P.2d 159 (Washington Supreme Court, 1946)
Medlinsky v. Premium Cut Beef Co.
57 N.E.2d 31 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Titlebaum v. Tobin
7 Mass. App. Div. 69 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1942)
Home Protection Building & Loan Ass'n Case
17 A.2d 755 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Russo v. Foster
24 N.E.2d 666 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Coleman v. Adkins
168 So. 184 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
Globe Ticket Co. v. Boston Retail Grocers' Ass'n
195 N.E. 309 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
City Ice & Fuel Co. v. Bright
73 F.2d 461 (Sixth Circuit, 1934)
Gallagher v. Phinney
187 N.E. 612 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Therrien v. Leblanc
185 N.E. 15 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Delano v. Goldstein
183 N.E. 146 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Greany v. McCormick
173 N.E. 411 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 N.E. 947, 181 Mass. 471, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-v-spencer-mass-1902.