10 N.J. Eq. 370 | New York Court of Chancery | 1855
After carefully examining all the facts and circumstances of -this case, I have come to the conclusion that it is proper and just that an allowance should he made for the hoard and maintenance of Mary McCullough, during the period of her permanent residence with Joseph Reading. It is true, where a person renders services to another relying solely upon his generosity, and expecting to he compensated hy a legacy, he cannot, when disappointed in his expectation, maintain
But a further claim is set up by the defendants in behalf of their intestate, which is for compensation rendered by Joseph Reading, as the agent of Mrs. McCullough, in taking care and charge of her business. I am disposed to allow to the defendants all I can in this case, but I do not think this claim can be supported. All the service proved to have been rendered was this. He received her money, and put it out at interest, and accounted to her for the interest from time to time. It is not shown how this service was rendered. The character of the investments is not shown. Indeed, from anything that appears to the contrary in the case, Mr. Reading used this money in his own business, without making any investment in the name of Mrs. McCullough. Under the circumstances this service was rendered, the law will not imply any obligation on the part of Mrs. McCullough to remunerate Mr. Reading. These services were performed during a period of eight years. If Mr. Reading intended to charge commissions, he should have made the charges, and deducted them from time to time, as he accounted with his principal.
In taking the account, a proper allowance will be made by the master for the maintenance of Mrs. McCullough during the period she resided with him after the 14th of February, 1840.