Case ID: wis_152/html/0632-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Maeshall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hay, Respondent, vs. Randles, Administrator, Appellant.
    
      February 21
    
    March 11, 1913.
    
    
      Claim, against decedent for personal services: Evidence: Sufficiency.
    
    Bindings in plaintiff’s favor upon a claim for compensation for personal services rendered by her as housekeeper to her uncle, since deceased, are held not to be against a clear preponderance of the evidence.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Columbia county: Chestee A. Eowlee, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Plaintiff filed a claim against tbe estate of J ames Randles, deceased, for compensation for personal services claimed to bave been rendered by ber for tbe deceased in bis lifetime under promise of compensation tberefor. Sbe was bis niece and served bim for years before be died. Tbe county court ■ allowed tbe claim at $936. Tbe administrator appealed to tbe circuit court. Tbe matter was there tried by tbe court, resulting in findings that plaintiff served tbe deceased as bis housekeeper, as sbe claimed, for over six years; that be expressly promised to pay ber tberefor; that be did not do so; and-that ber services were reasonably worth tbe sum of $111. Such findings were based on considerable evidence, most of which was of circumstantial character, which the trial court concluded established tbe facts found with reasonable certainty. Judgment was entered accordingly.
    
      Henry A. Gunderson, for tbe appellant.
    Eor tbe respondent there was a brief by W. G. Leitsch, attorney, and H. E. Andrews, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. Andrews.
    
   Maeshall, J.

There are no questions of law for consideration on this appeal. Tbe sole question is as to whether any finding of fact, vital to tbe recovery, is contrary to tbe clear preponderance of tbe evidence. On such a matter, in general, there is little or no use of doing more than to state the court’s conclusion which is, here, in the negative. No valuable purpose would be served, in this very ordinary case, by discussing the evidence. Therefore, no such discussion will be indulged in.

By the Court. — The judgment is affirmed.