Case ID: ala_83/html/0489-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SOMEBVILLE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mobley v. Webb.
    
      Contest of Claim filed against Insolvent Estate.
    
    1. Necessaries furnished to minor child by grandmother. — When an infant, whose parents are dead, is taken by his grandmother into her family, and furnished for years with necessary board,, clothing and tuition, she thereby places herself in loco parentis towards the child ; and on his death during minority, the law will not presume an indebtedness by the estate to her, in the absence of all evidence showing a claim of remuneration on her part, or the recognition of an indebtedness by the child.
    Appeal from the Probate Court of Greene.
    Heard before the Hon. Wi. C. Oliver.
    In the matter of the insolvent estate of William A. Glover, deceased, against which a claim was filed by Mrs. E. W. Clements, who was the decedent’s grandmother. The administrator filed objections to the allowance of tbe claim, denying any indebtedness, and pleading the statute of limitations ; and on tbe trial of tbe contest between tbe parties, made up under tbe direction of tbe court, tbe evidence established these facts: W. A. Glover died in June, 1873, being at tbe time about seventeen years of age. His mother, who was tbe daughter of Dr. A. Clements and Mrs. E. W. Clements, died in Noxubee county, Mississippi, in 1856, when said Wm. A., her only child, was an infant. A guardian for tbe infant was appointed in Mississippi, who received from tbe mother’s estate about $2,000, in 1869; “but said guardian went to Cuba soon afterwards, and tbe money now in tbe bands of tbe administrator, all the money ever realized for tbe said infant, was collected from tbe sureties of said guardian.” Tbe child was taken by Mrs. Clements into her family, but at what time does not appear, and was supported, clothed and educated by her. • Tbe claim filed by her against tbe estate was for “board, nursing and clothing, from about April, 1856, to October, 1858, at $12.50 per month;” board and clothing, in 1867 and 1869; and board, clothing and tuition, in 1870, 1871, and 1872; together amounting to $1,043.50. Tbe receipts for money paid on account of board and tuition at school, during the years 1870-72, were produced ; and there was evidence as to tbe reasonable value of tbe clothing furnished each year. There was proof, also, of declarations by Mrs. Clements, to tbe effect that she intended to provide for tbe child, as be bad nothing, and that she bad (or would) set apart for him a portion of a tract of land. Mrs. Clements died before tbe trial of tbe issue contesting her claim, and her estate was represented by an administrator ad litem. On tbe evidence adduced, tbe court held that tbe claim was barred by tbe statute of limitations, except as to tbe last two items, which together amounted to $47.50. Tbe administrator ad litem excepted to this ruling, and be here assigns tbe decree as error.
    G. B. Mobley, for tbe appellant.
    Wm. P. Webb, contra.
    
   SOMEBVILLE, J.

Tbe evidence before tbe probate judge authorized tbe conclusion, that tbe several sums paid out by Mrs. Clements for tbe benefit of Glover, who was a minor, and her grandson, were paid out without request on his pail. The grandmother also stood in loco parentis towards the minor, and the sums expended were for necessaries, such as board, tuition and clothing. She thus established a quasi parental relation towards him, by maintaining, clothing and educating him as a member of her family. No presentation of these accounts was shown to have been made to the minor during his life, or the life of the grandmother, and no promise to pay, express or implied, on his part is shown. From this fact a gift might well be presumed. The law, at any rate, will not presume an indebtedness from the estate of the minor to that of the grandmother, under these circumstances.

This view of the case is fatal to a recovery by the appellant, apart from any question as to the statute of limitations, and the judgment is affirmed.