Case ID: colo_56/html/0144-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Justice Gabbert", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 7852]
    McAfee v. McAfee’s Estate.
    District Court — Appeal from County Court — Trial de Novo — In an appeal from the county court to the district court the trial is in all respects de novo. The findings of the county court are not controlling.
    
      Error to Weld District Court. — Hon. H. P. Burke, Judge.
    Messrs. Miller, Barnd & Williams, for plaintiff in error.
    Mr. Y. E. Keyes, for defendant in error.
    
      Mrs. McAfee filed a claim in the snm of fifteen hundred dollars in the county court against the estate of Joseph McAfee, deceased. The claim was for the value of services rendered by her in caring for the decedent before his death. The county court allowed her claim in the sum of three hundred dollars, from which judgment she appealed to the district court. In the latter tribunal the case came on for trial before a jury. At the conclusion of the testimony on the part of the claimant the court directed the jury to return a verdict in the sum of three hundred dollars. From the testimony it appears that for more than six years previous to his death the decedent was afflicted with a loathsome and contagious disease; that he was mentally incompetent, and that his condition required that he be constantly cared for. One Joseph Mitchell had been appointed conservator of his estate. In this capacity he employed Mrs. McAfee to take care of his ward, and paid her from time to time sums ranging from $25 to $50 per month, and agreed to pay her out of the estate, if funds were available, such additional sum, which, with the amount paid, would reasonably compensate her for her services. It appears from the testimony that the claimant faithfully cared for the deceased for a period of about six years; that his condition was such that he required constant attention, and was so afflicted, both physically and mentally, as to render him exceedingly repulsive and difficult to care for. It also appears from the testimony that the services rendered by claimant were worth far more than the sums actually paid her by the conservator, and in excess of the sum of three hundred dollars. The court directed the verdict upon the theory that as the county court had allowed the claim in the sum of three hundred dollars the district court was without authority to permit the allowance of any greater sum. .
   Mr. Justice Gabbert

delivered the opinion of the court:

The testimony on behalf of the claimant tended to establish an agreement with the conservator for such compensation in addition to the sums paid as would reasonably compensate her for the services rendered. It also tended to establish that her services were worth far more than the sums paid, and much in excess of the amount which the court directed the jury to return. The trial in the district court should have been in all respects de novo, and the question of the amount to which the claimant was entitled should have been submitted to the jury for determination.

The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Chief Justice Musser and Mr. Justice Hill concur.