Case ID: kan_91/html/0134-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Porter, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 18,481.
    Thomas Huber, Appellee, v. W. J. Roth, Appellant.
    
    SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
    Members op Family — Transactions Between Presumed Gratuitous — -No Implied Contract for Payment. Moneys expended by a stepfather for the benefit of a stepson while the latter is a member of his family, and which neither intended should be repaid, can not be recovered upon any implied contract.
    Appeal from Kearny district court; William H. Thompson,, judge.
    Opinion filed December 6, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    
      Edgar Foster, of Garden City, and J. J. Bulger, of Wichita, for the appellant.
    
      A. R. Hetzer, of Lakin, and A. B. Reeves, of Dodge City, for the appellee.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.:

Practically the only question presented by the appeal is the denial of the defendant’s counterclaim. In his testimony, the defendant frankly admitted that he.never had any intention of making any charges against the plaintiff until after this suit was commenced. For the same reason that the plaintiff was not permitted to recover on his first and second causes of action, the defendant can not recover ón his counterclaim. The sums of money he paid out for the use and benefit of the plaintiff are in law regarded as mere gifts to a member of his family. Neither party intended repayment, and the relations existing between them prevent any implied contract from being raised. (Story v. McCormick, 70 Kan. 323, 330, 78 Pac. 819.) The defendant, therefore, was not prejudiced by finding No. 10, to the effect that he had not expended anything for improvements on the plaintiff’s land. He had expended money, but doubtless the jury regarded the expenditures as money given to the plaintiff.

The judgment is affirmed.