1 N.Y.S. 240 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1888
We have carefully examined this case, and we are convinced! that the decision of the learned referee is correct in regard to the facts and the law. In the spring of 1874 the plaintiff became a member of the family of her grandfather, Philip Hilton, as a domestic; being then about 12 years of age. She- went then, pursuant to a paroi agreement made between Philip Hilton and Joseph Blythe, the father of the plaintiff, the terms of which were-that Philip Hilton was to provide the plaintiff with board, clothing, and schooling, and if she remained there until she married, or became 21 years of age, and was a good girl, and obedient, she was to have a little better done for her. Such seems to have been substantially the arrangement under which she entered the family of her grandparents. Philip Hilton was, at the time, a farmer in comfortable circumstances, and managed his farm, transacted his-business, and provided for his family. His wife, Sarah Hilton, the testatrix, managed the household affairs, but beyond that seems to have had no control. She possessed a separate estate of about $4,000, which she managed. The parents of the plaintiff were in indigent circumstances, and probably unable to provide for the plaintiff. The plaintiff remained in the family of her grandparents between three and four years, when she left, and went to her father’s, and remained there one week, and then, according to the evidence of her father, left on foot; and, without informing her parents of her purpose in leaving, contracted a marriage with a man by the name of Harvey Spraker,
We have referred to the testimony of the several witnesses with the view to ascertain upon what evidence the pretended agreement rested, and under what circumstances the declarations of Sarah Hilton were claimed to have been made, and to discover whether and to what extent such statements were, in language or substance, alike and consistent. We are convinced that they are too loose, conflicting, and unreliable to furnish the elements of a valid agreement, and to constitute the basis of a legal cause of action against the estate of a deceased person. The declarations thus proved seem rather in the nature of gratuitous expressions, made by Mrs. Hilton, which obviously proceeded from no definite or fixed purpose in her mind, and without the remotest intention of creating a legal liability. Whatever she promised was purely voluntary, as she was under no legal obligation to compensate the
The referee, at folio 22 of the case, has made the following finding: “Eleventh. That after the plaintiff had commenced the domestic service under and in pursuance of the agreement and arrangement between her father and grandfather, and continued the service, her grandfather also fully performing his part of the terms thereof for more than the one-half of the entire time of her service, the said Sarah Hilton told her if she was a good girl, and stayed till she got married or twenty-one years of age, she would give her $250 in her will.” The referee further finds the following: “Ninth. That she did not stay and live with her grandparents till she got married, or till she was twenty-one years of age, but left one week before such marriage, and' never returned to such service.” This latter finding of the referee is sustained by the evidence as to the letter and spirit of the alleged provision in regard to the condition upon which the contemplated testamentary provision was made to depend. The plaintiff did leave the service without the permission of her grandparents, and without informing them of her intended departure, or the purpose thereof. One week intervened between the time she left and the marriage; so that there was strictly a violation of the agreement on her part, and a failure of the condition upon which the alleged promise rested. But, beyond that, and what was evidently regarded by Mrs. Hilton of far greater consequence, the plaintiff forfeited her confidence and respect by the manner she abandoned the family, and by the unfortunate marriage which she contracted. The evidence has produced upon our mind the conviction that this claim is- the result of an after-thought on the part of the plaintiff, and is rather experimental than otherwise. Claims of the nature of the one here asserted against the estates of deceased persons, based upon no agreement clearly expressed or satisfactorily established by reliable evidence, should be carefully scrutinized by courts, to the end that speculative or fictitious claims should not be encouraged. Obviously, it would not be diifieult for a party, moved by a selfish motive, to gather up loose expressions made by a person, while living, to third parties, who possibly misapprehended what was said, and weave them into such a form as to constitute the elements of a cause of action against the estate of such person after death.
Again, Sarah Hilton was a married woman, residing with her husband, and being supported by him at the time the pretended agreement was made by her with the plaintiff, and during the period the latter rendered the service in the family under the agreement -between Philip Hilton and the father of the plaintiff, who was, during her infancy, entitled to her earnings, and liable for her support. There is no evidence, which we discover, to the effect that the plaintiff manifested unwillingness to become a member of the family of her grandparents, or to continue there, or that there, was any change in the nature of her service. The promise of Sarah Hilton, under the circumstances, was gratuitous, .without consideration, and in no manner connected with any business which she conducted separate from her husband, and did not in terms, or by necessary implication, create a charge upon her separate estate. Such a promise, made under such a state of facts, created no legal liability. Eisenlord v. Snyder, 71 N. Y. 45; Yale v. Dederer, 22 N. Y. 450, 18 N. Y. 265; Linderman v. Farquharson, 101 N. Y. 434, 5 N. E. Rep. 67. We fully recognize the rule established by a class of adjudications, to the effect that a
Learned, P. J., and Landon, J., concur.