Case Name: White vs. Burton
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1849-12
Citations: 10 Hum. 329
Docket Number: 
Parties: White vs. Burton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 329–330

Head Matter:
White vs. Burton.
White was in possession of real estate, part of the estate of her deceased husband. The houses were repaired under her general superintendence, by a carpenter, during her occupancy thereof, and the real estate and houses situate thereupon was subsequently assigned to her as dower. The carpenter’s bill was presented to her for payment; she did not object to the amount or dispute her liability therefor, but said it would be paid when the administrator arrived. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. It is held that the jury might well have inferred an implied contract on her part to pay the bill in question, from the evidence; and under the rule of the court, that in civil cases the court will not disturb the verdict of a jury and judgment thereupon, unless there be a decided preponderance of evidence against them, the judgment was affirmed.
Assumpsit by Burton against White in the circuit court of Davidson county. Plea non assumpsit. Verdict and judgment (Turner, judge, presiding) for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
Washington, for the plaintiff in error.
E. Ewing and Trimble, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
McKinney, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
We are not prepared to say, that there is no evidence in the record before us to support. the verdict of the jury; and unless such were our opinion, we could not, under the established rule of this court, interpose to grant a new trial.
The proof shows, that at the time the work was done, and prior to that time, the plaintiff in error was in the use and occupancy of the property, and has continued to occupy, it; and that it has since been laid off and assigned to her as part of her dower of the estate of her deceased husband: that while said work was in progress, she was there giving a general superintendence; that after the death of Burton, the testator of defendant in error, the account sued for was presented to the plaintiff in error for payment, and "she made no objection to the account, or items, or her liability ; and stated that when the administrator of Judge White should come up, which she expected would be in the course of the fall, the-said account would be paid."
The foregoing facts, we think, might well have been regarded by the jury as evidence of an implied contract with the plaintiff in error for the work in question, and of a promise by her to pay the same.
There is no error in the record, and the judgment will be affirmed.