The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-07-18
LEGAL STATUS OF A WIFE
CANNOT RECOVER FOR SERVICES
RENDERED. HER HUSBAND.
A Lawyer Married His COpyist, Died
Interstate and She Sued the Estate
for Thirty Years Wages.
New York Evening Sun.

New York Evening Sun.
BY decision handed down in the cases
reported at the end of June the Court of
Appeals has decided that a wife cannot re-
cover from her husbands estate for serv-
ices rendered to him, although the services
are unusual and he makes a written con-
tract naming the compensation. The case
in which the decision is given is one which
Margaret CalHster brought against her
husbands estate for $22, 1913, for services
for about thirty-two years. The case has
been fought in all the courts of the State
The facts, as told in the decision and opin-
ion of each court and in the papers fled
base the claim upon a. contract made over
forty years ago between John Callister and
his clerk.
Callister a young lawyer Just begin
ming practice in Ontario county at the time
the story begins, in the spring of 1856. Find
ing as hi%law business grew, that he need
ed a copyist he hired for that purpose
Margaret Walker, who was considerably
younger than himself. The exact state of
facts which led up to the contract as to
payment can never be known unless Mar
garet Callister should some time choose to
tell them. They are not mentioned in any
of the papers.
But whatever the underlying cause, the
COulIdCl llSGIL was one VI Tie IIlOSI CuIlOuS
documents which ever came before court
of record. 1t provided, briefly and succinct-
ly that John Callister employed Margaret
Walker as copyist or clerk. She was never
to be discharged until he should retire from
the practice of law. He was to pay her at
the rate of $500 year. But-and next to
this nondischarge clause this is the most
curious part of the agreement-no payment
was to be made TO Margaret Walker until
.TOh0 (talliSt4r S1OHl6 retire from praPtiCa
In due time John Callister retired from
practice. This was on Sept g. 1883, the day
he died. Several occurrences in the inter-
val further complicated the copyists claim
to compensation under the agreement.
The first of these was that on May g. 1851,
or about a year later than the time she en-
tered the lawyers office Margaret Walker,
spinster, became Mrs. John Callister. The
pair lived happily together he pracucng
copyist and fulfilling the duties of the place
us wen as that of mistress of the Callister
the firm of John Callister and wife the
law business prospered- Callister grew
rich-rich, that is, for lawyer In an inland
county. He was worth 100000 when he
died
For thirty years the employment of Mar
garet CalIister as copyist continued. AL
though it is not so asserted in the papers,
| IL is to be inferred that Caliister, when he
made the contract, intended to retire from
practice when he got rich enough to spend
his last days with his wife and children.
But as years passed his mind changed. He
had no neeQ TO reIlTe from pTdCLtCS 10 ENJOY
the company of his wife, for she was with
| him in the office every day. They had no
HE LEFT NO WILL.
While, as shown by the peculiar form of
the contract, John Callister had will of
his own all his life. he left none after his
death. AS Judge Vann, of the Court of
Appeals, puts it in his decision: said John
Callister on the 8th of September 1888, died
lntestate, leaving a widow, Margaret Calls
ter, since appointed administrative, and
certain collateral relatives who were his
next of kim" In his thirty or more years Of
practice Callister made hundreds of Wills
for others. He made none for himself, and
g pudde ensued in consequence.
Under the law his widow was entitled only
to her dover, or the use of one-third of the
estate. She thereupon sued the estate for
s22, 1917 3, or $500 year with interest ne Tor
the term Of her service, less 81. This 70 was
given her on Oct. %, 1862, ION account by
her husband.
being the collateral relatives, who did not
wish slice of that size TO be taken from
the part OF the estate to be divided among
them They conceded the contract, but
held that the wife's services belonged to
her husband without compensation Ihey
won The referee decided that Mrs. Cal
lister was entitled to $495 salary Tor the
year in which she was copylst as Margaret
Walker, spinster, less s., subsequently paid
Mrs CaIHster appealed to the surrogate.
| II was urged in contention of her claim
| that the contract showed two intentions on
| the part of John Callister; one was that
| ne intended from before the time she en-
| tered his office TO marry his copyist. OtheE
! wise how could he expect her TO support
| herseIf until his retirement from practice2
! The other was that he intended to provide
| for her either when he should die or when
! he should retire from practice, the contract
! being worded so that the debt would be an
/ actual one of his estate. The surrogate
evidently agreed that Callister so intended,
for he allowed the whole claim of the
/ widow with interest.
| Mary Radcliffe and others as next of kin.
| then appealed from the surrogate's decision
| 10 the Supreme Court The General Term
decided against the widow, reversing the
surrokate's holding. and saying that she