Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-03-06
LAW COURT DECISION.
Motion Overruled in Case Of w. n
Goodeii VS.. Pcndleton ct ais.

William II. GOodeil VS.. PendletOn ct
ais, AdministrGtOrS.-Rc Scrpt by
Whitehouse. J.
This case comes to the court on a
motion TO set aside verdict of $l6195O
recovered by the plaintiff against the
representative Of his fathers estate for
service rendered his father during the
last six years of his life.
In 1859, Capt Daniel S. Goodcll of
Scarsport. the plaintiffs father. was II
retired sea captain and shipbuilder.
possessed of property worth more than
500, 900. He died March 80. 1904. at the
age of Sc years leaving four children.
Mrs. Haillock. Mrs. Davis. Capt. Dam
lei s. Goodell. Jr.. and the plaintiff
who was known as Capt William. The
plaintiffs mother died more than six
years before his fathers death.
1t was incumbent upon the plaintiff
to satisfy the jury that the services
were rendered under circumstances
consistent with contract relations be-
tween the parties and that the defend
ant either expressly agreed to pay for
the services or to give certain proper
" therefor or that they We're rendered
by the plaintiff in pursuance of mu-
tual understanding between the par
ties that he was to receive payment.
or in the expectation and belief that he
was to receive payment and that the
circumstances Of the case and the con-
duct Of the defendant justified such
expectation and belief.
In view of the character and extent
Of the services rendered during these
six years and the complaint made in
r.,, rd m r.on,paDcattnp II CON hardly
De said that there was no evidence to
support the conclusion Of the jury that
the plaintiff expected compensation.
not necessarily in monthly wages. but
in property at or before his fathers
death. On the other hand. his fathers
statement to neighbor that Will
would have the homestead. considered
in connection with the fact that the
home was given TO the plaintiff by will.
and that all the rest Of the property.
except that used in helping the other
children was equally divided among
these heirs. Is capable of producing the
impression that There was not only a
desire or his part to euualiZe the boun-
ties given to help the children, bat
recognition also Of just claim or
the part of the plaintiff for payment
for services. There is no evidence of a
S!ecial agreement between them that
the plaintiff was to have the home in
payment or that he ever had any
knowledge Of his fathers purpose to
give it to him. The jury were not COM
PEELED to find that the devise of the
house was in fuhillment of a contract
Itut If the jury were warranted in find
ing that 1t was made in any degree as
y recognition Of the plaintiffs right to
payment for services they were also
authorized to award further compensa-
ton II they found the home Inadequate
In other words IL they found that the
plaintiff rendered the services with ar
exception of payment which was JUST
fSed by the conduct and declaration OF
his father and that the amount as moi
agreed upon the Judgment and deci
sion Of the father respecting tn,
amount would not be conclusive. 1
would he omen for the jury to fix :
reasonable compensation.
In this case. as is often observed il
the relations of father and son unde
like circumstances there seems to hav
heen an absence of definite expression
OF thought and purpose on both sides
The evidence Is not as explicit unc
ciuivocal and satisfactory as could b
desired. but following n like decision
or the commissioners it was such
verdict as might have been anticipate,
aud, 1t does not seem to be so fragrant
turn It.
In fixing the amount the jury wer