The record-union., 1899-11-25
ABOUT EIGHTEEN THOUSAND.
AMANDA AUSTIN'S SHARE OF
"UNCLE JEFTS, ESTATE.
Judge Ellison's Decision In the
Celebrated Wilcoxson Es-
tate Case.

tate Case.
Superior Judge j. F. Ellison of Te-
hama yesterday filed his decision ia lii@
case Of Amanda Austin against uie
estate of the late JeHerson WLcoAsoii'
the trial of which recently occupleu Ses
eral weeks in this city. MISS Aus.ii'
sued for $150,0O0, claiming thal i1i
grand-uncle had promised her that sun
and that he intended her TO nave :.
because of her long and fa1thful ser
vices as companion and nurse.
There were many points on Wnlcn the
plaintiff relied to prove her claim, put
Judge Ellison recognized but one. 6e
thinks it was shown that Jefferson VIII
coxson induced her to come here from
Missouri and make her home with him,
and that he promised to reward her Tor
her services. So he allows her $1,2Uu
per wear for the rest of her life, the
actual value of which he calculates
would be about $1S,0O0, accepting the
standard life insurance statistics as ap-
proximately reliable.
Referring to the decision yesterday
Arthur Seymour, one of the counsel for
the estate, said:
THE heirs to the estate of Wilcox
son Will not offer any objection to, this
award, and I've no doubt Miss Austin
could get a check for it in five minutes.
AS to whether or not the decision would
stand, if we saw fit to contest 1t, that
is matter that need not now be dls-
cussed. Our clients don't care TO con-
test it, for they have recognized from
the first that Miss Austin was entitled
to something for her faithful services
to her grand-uncle, and have stood
ready to allow her some $4,000 at any
time.
But the executor of the estate could
not allow, in justice to the other heirs,
any such claim as $150,OOO. because IL
was unreasonable and had no legal foot
ing. He could not justify his action
in allowing such a claim
The case has excited a great deal OF
interest not only in Sacramento, but
other parts of the State. sFollowing is
JUDGE ELLISON'S DECISION.
The plaintiff brought this action
against the estate of Jefferson Wilcox
son, deceased, to recover the reasonable
value of services alleged to have been
performed by her for the deceased in
his lifetime.
The complaint alleges in substance,
that in 1879 the deceased wrote letters
to plaintiffs father and mother and to
plaintiff, requesting her to come to Cal
ifornia and live with him, look after
him when he might be SICK etc, and
promised and agreed that if she would
do so. he would provide well for her
during his life. and at his death she
should be amply paid for all her SER
vices, sacrifices, etc.
That she accepted his proposition
came to California in July, 1879, and
served, waited upon and cared for de-
ceased until his death in 1898
That her services We're reasonably
worth $15O.0O0, and no part of it has
been paid.
The first proposition presented to the
court for its decision is, was there a
contract by which the deceased became
bound to pay plaintiff for her services:
The contract relied upon by plain
tiff, if any existed, was created by the
letters alleged to have been written tc
her father and mother and to herself
in 1879, and her acceptance of the
terms thereof
II the letters referred to in her COM
plaint had been produced in court. ar
examination of their contents would
have rendered the solution of the causs
an easy task, but, unfortunately, they
were not. The plaintiff testified thai
in 1880 she destroyed them
After having deliberately DESTROYED
her title papers to a fortune. if she is
disappointed in her expectations she
must attribute it, not to defect in the
law or its administration, but to her
own reckless or thoughtless act.
The law is very clearly stated in
Graudine VS.. Reading, 10 n. J. Eu. 80
that where a person renders services to
another, relying solely upon his gener-
oslty and expecting to be compensated
by a legacy, he cannot, when disap-
pointed in his expectations, maintain
an action at law for the value of those
services. 4.
There is. upon such facts, no express
or implied contract that can be en-
forced. 1t is like a case of children
serving their parents before or after
their majority. Such service is pre-.
surned to be gratuitous unless it be
proved affirmatively that there was a
contract or understanding, or circum-
stances showing a reasonable and
proper expectation that there should be
compensation. The law will not pre-
sumo a hiring or promise to pay where
the family relation is shown to exist
between the parties. So in this cause
it seems to be conceded that the evi-
dence must show a contract to paw.
The contract need not show the
amount to be paid, but it must rebut al
presumption that the services were in.
tended to be gratuitous. 1t needs &c
no farther.
The letters being destroyed, plaintiff
was permitted as best she could, te
prove their contents by the oral testi.
mony of living witnesses.
The witnesses relied upon to prove
their contents were DR.. p Austin ant
Mary E. Austin, father and mother o.
plaintiff.
Dr. Austin testified in substance thai
In the spring of 1879, Jefferson Viii.