181 Mass. 471 | Mass. | 1902
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.
