Case Title: Wagner v. Savage, as Adm'r

Citation: 195 Or. 128, 244 P.2d 161

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1952-04-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed April 30, 1952.
Petition for rehearing denied May 28, 1952.
*131 Edward E. Sox, of Albany, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Wendell H. Tompkins, of Albany.
Orval N. Thompson argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Weatherford & Thompson, of Albany.
Before BRAND, Chief Justice, and HAY, LUSK, WARNER and TOOZE, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
TOOZE, J.
This is an action of assumpsit to recover the reasonable value of personal services rendered, brought by Elizabeth M. Wagner, as plaintiff, against Rodney J. Savage, as administrator of the estate of Albert M. Savage, deceased, as defendant. Upon stipulation of the parties, the action was tried to the court without the intervention of a jury. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $12,500; defendant appeals.
Prior to and on February 1, 1943, one Albert M. Savage was the owner of approximately 40 acres of land located in Linn county, Oregon, and also possessed $1,500 in cash, together with certain household goods, farming equipment, and livestock. He also was leasing a farm located near Peoria, in Linn county, and was living alone thereon. He was a widower, fifty-one years of age. At the time, domestic and farm help was scarce in Linn county, because most of the men and women who ordinarily were available for employment and who lived within a radius of one hundred miles from Portland had taken advantage of the high wages being paid in the shipyards at Portland and at *132 Vancouver, Washington, and were employed there. Savage was compelled not only to carry on his farm work more or less alone, but also to do his own housekeeping. He found the work too burdensome and proposed to give up his farming operations.
Prior to December, 1939, and for 18 years continuously, plaintiff had resided in Portland, where she owned some property. Her husband died in January, 1939. She had been employed at the Meier & Frank department store in Portland. In December, 1939, she went to Linn county and took up her residence in the home of her mother, one Eliza J. Erickson, who lived on a farm located about seven miles from Halsey, in Linn county. About the first of the year in 1942, plaintiff met Alfred M. Savage at a grange meeting. Thereafter, she and Savage met frequently at grange meetings, and on occasions he would escort her to her home.
In the fall of 1942, Savage first proposed to plaintiff that she move into his home and keep house for him. The parties had several conversations respecting the matter, as plaintiff did not at first accept Savage's proposal. According to the testimony of plaintiff, during the latter part of December, 1942, she and Savage were sitting in his automobile which at the time was parked in front of plaintiff's home, when the following conversation took place:
The final conversation occurred in the home of plaintiff's mother; and in this conversation, according *134 to plaintiff, Savage repeated his offer to compensate plaintiff for her services in the manner above outlined, and she accepted. Plaintiff immediately undertook the duties of her employment, her first efforts being devoted to cleaning the house in which Savage lived, making some repairs thereto, and rendering the same habitable for a woman. She moved into that home on or about February 1, 1943, and continued to reside there. For more than three years, and continuously during the remainder of the life of Savage, she not only performed the necessary housework, including cooking, washing and mending of clothes, and other usual housekeeping chores, but also worked outside, doing a man's work. She raised chickens and turkeys, helped in haying, and performed other farm duties.
In the summer of 1946, Savage suffered an accidental injury from which he died on August 5, 1946. The record discloses that he had failed during his lifetime to execute a will or other instrument to carry out his promise above referred to, and that he died without compensating plaintiff for her services as he had agreed, or otherwise, or at all. The record firmly establishes the fact that the services of plaintiff were performed pursuant to the oral agreement, and for compensation.
On or about February 8, 1950, plaintiff filed with the defendant, as administrator of the estate of Alfred M. Savage, deceased, her duly verified claim for compensation, in manner and form as required by law. § 19-703, OCLA. Omitting all formal portions, plaintiff's claim is as follows:
On February 13, 1950, defendant, as such administrator, rejected said claim, and the original claim, together with the endorsement thereon of defendant's rejection thereof, was filed in said estate on February 20, 1950.
On March 6, 1950, plaintiff filed in the circuit court for Linn county, her duly verified complaint in the instant action. Defendant moved that said complaint be made more definite and certain by setting out in full the contents of plaintiff's claim as presented to defendant. On May 11, 1950, plaintiff filed her amended complaint, attaching thereto and making a part thereof a true copy of her verified claim as presented to and rejected by defendant. In part, it is alleged in said amended complaint:
Defendant, by his answer, denied paragraph I of the complaint, except the allegation that Alfred M. Savage was the owner of a small tract of land and a small amount of money. He admitted paragraphs II and III. Defendant then pleaded three separate and affirmative defenses as follows:
Second: After realleging in substance the matters set forth in his first separate defense, defendant alleged:
*139 Third: Defendant pleaded payment for all services performed by plaintiff.
By her reply, plaintiff denied all the allegations of new matter contained in defendant's answer.
Section 19-704, OCLA, in part provides:
1, 2. There is substantial evidence in the record of this case which tends to corroborate plaintiff's testimony and claim that Alfred M. Savage agreed to compensate her for the services she performed at the instance and request of Savage; that she faithfully performed these services for a period of more than three years, and that such services included not only housekeeping work, but also work on the farm outside the house; and the reasonable value of such services. Several witnesses testified respecting the services plaintiff performed, as well as to the reasonable value thereof. As a witness, Eliza J. Erickson corroborated plaintiff's testimony regarding the original agreement between plaintiff and Savage. Defendant offered some testimony regarding the reasonable value of the services performed, and some evidence to support his defense that plaintiff had been paid in full. Although plaintiff's own testimony is not to be disregarded, nevertheless, there is abundant evidence in the record, wholly apart from her testimony, to establish every essential element of her claim, except perhaps the fact of nonpayment. It is well established in this state that, where corroborating testimony is sufficient as to the *140 performance of service and its reasonable value, claimant's testimony that the claim against deceased employer's estate has not been paid does not have to be corroborated. Payment is a defense which must be pleaded and proved, and upon the defendant rests the burden of proof. The rule is aptly stated by Mr. Justice ROSSMAN in Littlepage v. Security S. & T. Co., 137 Or 559, 560, 3 P2d 752, as follows:
The trial court found as facts that Alfred M. Savage promised to compensate plaintiff for her services in the amount of all that he and she acquired in his lifetime; that plaintiff accepted said offer and entered into the performance of said services and did perform the same during the remainder of the life of said Savage until August 6, 1946; that said Savage promised to compensate plaintiff for said services as aforesaid and that all of said services were rendered and performed pursuant to said agreement from the spring of 1943 to August 6, 1946, for compensation and not otherwise; that plaintiff had not been compensated for the services she rendered to said Savage; and that the reasonable value of the services so performed is the sum of $12,500, no part of which had been paid to plaintiff.
*141 3. This being a law action, the findings of the trial court upon the facts have all the force and effect of a verdict of a jury, and this court is bound thereby if there is any substantial evidence in the record to support them. We are not permitted to weigh the evidence and arrive at our own independent conclusions respecting the facts, as is the case in equity proceedings which are here tried de novo. As before observed, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the trial court.
The real problem for solution in this case arises on defendant's affirmative defenses of res judicata and estoppel.
It appears from the record herein that on May 7, 1948, the plaintiff herein, as plaintiff therein, filed an amended complaint in the circuit court for Linn county, in which Rodney J. Savage, as administrator of the estate of Alfred M. Savage, deceased, Rodney Savage, Amy E. Dannen, Nellie Hover, Fay Udell, Eugene Mishler, Marvel Mishler, Calvin Mishler, Evelyn Mishler, and Amy E. Dannen, as administratrix of the estate of Susan B. Savage, deceased, were named as defendants. So far as material to the issues now before this court, said amended complaint alleged:
In effect, plaintiff prayed for a decree of specific performance of the oral agreement between herself and Savage.
Defendants answered this amended complaint, denying all the material allegations thereof. The suit came on for trial before the Honorable George R. Duncan, circuit judge, and on December 7, 1949, a decree was entered dismissing the matter with prejudice and without costs to either party. The trial judge made no findings of fact. The decree, so far as material here, reads as follows:
In passing, we note that on the trial of the instant litigation a letter written by Judge Duncan to the respective attorneys for the parties under date of November 25, 1949, was admitted in evidence. This letter was not filed or made a part of the record in the suit for specific performance. It is wholly incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial to any issue in this case, and must be completely disregarded.
As a preliminary to his discussion of the doctrine of res judicata, defendant urges upon us the contention that plaintiff cannot recover upon a quantum meruit in this action, inasmuch as she has pleaded an express contract as the basis of her claim. His contention is expressed in his brief as follows:
Defendant then cites and quotes from certain authorities which he contends sustain his position. Rockwell Stock Co. v. Castroni, 6 Colo App 528, 42 P 182; 5 Bancroft's Code Pleading, 4511, § 2457 (Work and Labor).
*145 4-6. Those authorities are not in point under the facts of this case. The rule enunciated applies only to executory contracts. It does not apply where the plaintiff has fully performed a special contract. The rule applicable to the instant case is well stated by the late Mr. Justice BELT in Sharp v. McCargar et al., 114 Or 435, 441, 236 P 262, as follows:
7. Pleading the agreement between herself and Savage as a basis of her claim for the reasonable value of *146 services performed was a proper pleading on the part of plaintiff. It was proper to show that her services were performed pursuant to an agreement providing for compensation; it established a contractual relationship between herself and Savage.
The action was tried on the theory of a quantum meruit, and the judgment entered was based upon the reasonable value of the services plaintiff performed, and not upon the value of the real and personal property comprising the estate of Albert M. Savage, deceased. The record shows the value of that property to be in excess of $17,000. At the very outset of the trial, in discussing an objection made by defendant to the testimony of plaintiff respecting her oral agreement with Savage, the court stated: "And the plaintiff contends that they are here on a contract quantum meruit."
Respecting his plea of res judicata, defendant states in his brief:
8. The law is well established that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, on the *147 merits, is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and as to them constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand, and cause of action. However, if the two suits do not involve the same claim, demand, and cause of action, such effect will not ordinarily be given to the prior judgment. To give such effect, there must not only be identity of subject matter, but also of the cause of action, so that a judgment in a former action does not operate to bar the subsequent action, where the cause of action is not the same, although each action relates to the same subject matter.
9. But if the subsequent proceeding be between the same parties, or their privies, and is based upon the same claim or cause of suit as that in the prior case, the judgment in the first suit is not only a bar as to all matters actually determined therein, but also as to every other matter which the parties might have litigated and had decided as incident to or essentially connected therewith, either as a matter of claim or defense. However, if the subsequent action is upon a different claim or demand, the former judgment can only operate as a bar or an estoppel as against matters actually litigated or questions directly in issue in the former action. Winters v. Bisaillon, 153 Or 509, 513, 57 P2d 1095, 104 ALR 968; Ruckman v. Union Railway Co., 45 Or 578, 581, 78 P 748, 69 LRA 480; 30 Am Jur, Judgments, 925, § 180.
10. As a general proposition, it may be stated that the principle of res judicata applies as well in equity as at law, and that a final decree on the merits in a suit in equity will operate as a bar or estoppel to any further litigation between the same parties, or their privies, on the same cause of action in a court of law. 50 CJS, Judgments, 32, § 609.
*148 Section 2-718, OCLA, in part provides:
Section 2-721, OCLA, provides:
11. It is manifest that plaintiff's cause of action in the instant litigation is entirely different from the cause of suit alleged in the prior proceeding in equity for specific performance of the oral agreement to compensate plaintiff by giving her all the property owned by the decedent, Albert M. Savage, at the time of his death. Here, plaintiff is suing in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of personal services she performed for Savage.
The decree of the trial court in the former suit for specific performance does not show on its face any determination other than that the equities were in favor of defendants, and that plaintiff was not entitled to recover in that proceeding. There is no finding by the court that the oral agreement pleaded and relied upon by plaintiff did not in fact exist, nor that plaintiff *149 did not fully and faithfully perform her part of the agreement. Neither were such findings of fact necessarily included in or essential to the court's decree. The decree on its face is entirely consistent with the existence of such a contract and the performance of the claimed services by plaintiff. This will become apparent as we discuss the law regarding the remedy of specific performance in suits involving oral agreements to make a will or transfer property in consideration of personal services performed, or to be performed.
12. At the outset, it must be borne in mind that specific performance of a contract is not a matter of right in equity, but is more a matter of grace, and rests in the sound discretion of the court, controlled by equitable principles. Dixon v. Simpson et al., 130 Or 211, 279 P 939; Wetherby v. Griswold, 75 Or 468, 147 P 388; Hawkins v. Doe, 60 Or 437, 119 P 754, Ann Cas 1914A, 765.
13, 14. Before a court of equity may exercise its discretion to enforce specifically an oral contract to devise, there must be proof of a binding agreement that is clear, just, definite, reasonable, and mutual in its obligations, in all parts. Such a contract is within the statute of frauds; and in order to remove such an agreement from provisions of the statute and enforce its specific performance, there must be adequate proof to establish the contract to the satisfaction of the court, accompanied by such evidence of part performance as will make it a fraud upon the plaintiff not to complete the contract. Mathews v. Tobias et al., 101 Or 605, 609, 201 P 199.
15. But more important to the issues in the instant case is the well-established rule that equity will not decree specific performance where there is a plain, *150 adequate, and complete remedy at law. 58 CJ, Specific Performance, 852, § 7.
16. Ordinarily, a person performing services for another, under an oral agreement to convey land in payment therefor, either by deed or devise, cannot have specific performance of the agreement where he has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law to recover the reasonable value of his services. It is only in cases where the services performed are of an unusual character, involving elements other than the actual work itself, and where compensation in money would not be adequate, that specific performance of such an oral agreement will be decreed. Roadman v. Harding, 63 Or 122, 125, 126 P 993; Cooper v. Colson, 66 NJ Eq 328, 58 A 337, 338, 105 Am St Rep 660.
In Roadman v. Harding, supra, the late Mr. Justice BURNETT stated the following:
*151 In Cooper v. Colson, supra, at page 338 of 58 A, the New Jersey court said:
This New Jersey decision was cited and quoted from with approval by this court in Brennen v. Derby et al., 124 Or 574, 582, 265 P 425.
No blood or other close relationship existed between plaintiff and Savage at the time they entered into the oral agreement under which plaintiff performed the services she did perform for him. The services she rendered were neither exceptional nor extraordinary, though they may have been arduous. They were not of such peculiar character that adequate compensation in money cannot be made therefor. Because plaintiff had a plain, speedy, adequate, and complete remedy at law, she was not entitled to a decree of specific performance as prayed for in her former suit. Nor could she recover in that suit on a quantum meruit for the reasonable value of her services. To recover such reasonable value, she necessarily was compelled to *152 proceed at law. Under the existing circumstances, she had no standing whatever in equity. The trial court properly denied specific performance. However, under the express provisions of § 2-721, OCLA, the decree of the court in that suit is not res judicata respecting the existence or nonexistence of the contract as claimed by plaintiff, nor as to the performance of the services she alleges.
There also is authority for the proposition that a decree of a court of equity denying specific performance of an oral agreement of the type involved here is not available as a defense of res judicata and as a bar in a subsequent action on quantum meruit. Richter v. Derby, 135 Or 400, 295 P 457; Brennen v. Derby, supra; Eisenbeis v. Shillington, 349 Mo 108, 159 SW2d 641; Bottomly v. Parmenter, 85 NH 322, 159 A 302; Ney v. Zimmerman, 201 NYS 788, 207 App Div 195; Maxfield v. Dertadian, 66 NYS2d 346, 271 App Div 861; Gall v. Gall, 45 NYS 248, 17 App Div 312; Thayer v. Harbican, 70 Wash 278, 126 P 625; Nickoll v. Racine Cloak & Suit Co., 194 Wis 298, 216 NW 502; 50 CJS, Judgments, 98, § 653.
In Brennen v. Darby, supra, plaintiff brought suit for specific performance of an alleged oral promise by one T.W. Steiger to devise and bequeath his real and personal property to her, in consideration of her remaining with him during the remainder of his life, and to render unto him companionship, help, and association as a dutiful child. Plaintiff alleged complete performance on her part of the terms of the agreement. Steiger died without having fulfilled his promise, and suit was instituted against the administrator of his estate. The trial court entered decree in favor of plaintiff, and the administrator appealed.
When plaintiff was three years of age, she had *153 been left by her parents in the Steiger home. Thereafter, that was her home. She was reared and treated almost as a daughter, and an extremely close relationship existed between her and the Steigers. When plaintiff was 13 years of age, marital difficulties arose between Steiger and his wife, culminating in divorce. At that time plaintiff's father proposed to remove plaintiff from the Steiger home. It was to avoid separation from plaintiff that Steiger then made his oral offer. The offer was accepted, and, acting pursuant to the agreement, plaintiff remained with him until his death.
This court reversed the decree for specific performance. In the opinion the court called attention to the availability of an action at law on quantum meruit, citing in support thereof the cases of Farrin v. Matthews, 62 Or 517, 124 P 675, 41 LRA NS 184; and Roadman v. Harding, supra.
After quoting with approval from the decision in Cooper v. Colson, supra, this court, at page 582, said:
*154 Plaintiff in that case then commenced an action in assumpsit to recover for the reasonable value of the services she had performed for Steiger during his lifetime, pursuant to the terms of the agreement mentioned. In that action she was awarded judgment in the sum of $23,000. On appeal to this court, the judgment was affirmed. Richter v. Derby, supra.
In referring to the testimony of plaintiff respecting the agreement between herself and Steiger, this court, at page 403, stated:
Speaking of corroborating testimony necessary in such a case, the court, at page 406, said: "There was abundant corroborating testimony of an express contract. There is evidence of the value of the services, and although not necessary, it is also corroborated." (Italics ours.)
Answering another contention that the contract plaintiff attempted to prove was within the statute of frauds, the court, at page 407, remarked:
In Maxfield v. Dertadian, supra, the New York court said:
We find no prejudicial error in the record. The judgment is affirmed.