Case Name: Tompkins v. Starr
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1884-01
Citations: 41 Ohio St. 305
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tompkins v. Starr.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 41
Pages: 305–307

Head Matter:
Tompkins v. Starr.
Where T. claimed and had offered evidence to show that S., her brother, had agreed to furnish her a home as long as she lived, if she would act as his housekeeper, and S. claimed that by the arrangement between them T. was to be "his housekeeper only so long as they could agree, or as long as they could get along together, Held: That it was competent for S., as tending to support his claim, to prove that T. was a person of peevish, nervous and disagreeable temper, and that none of her relatives who had tried to live with her could do so; and that these facts were known to S. when the arrangement to live together was made.
Ekkor to the District Court of Cuyahoga County.
The original action was by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, her brother, for the failure to perform a contract, as she claimed, by which the defendant had agreed to furnish her a home during her life, in consideration that she should act as the housekeeper of the defendant during that time. The defendant admitted that an arrangement existed between him and the plaintiff, by which she was to be his housekeeper; but he claimed that the arrangement was not to continue for any definite time, but was to last only while they could agree, or while they could get along together. The plaintiff had given evidence in support of her claim and the defendant after testifying to the arrangement he claimed to exist between them, was asked by his counsel, what was the character and disposition of the plaintiff as to being peevish, nervous, illnatured or otherwise. Objection was made to the question. Counsel for defendant thereupon stated that the defense proposed by the testimony of the witness to show that the plaintiff was of a very peevish, nervous and disagreeable temper and that none of her relations who had tried to live with her, could do so — and to show further that these facts were known to the defendant when the arrangement to live together was made.
The court sustained the objection and refused to allow any of these facts to be stated by the witness. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. This judgment was reversed by the district court, for the refusal of the common pleas to admit the proof so excluded.
Mix, Noble & White, for plaintiff in error.
S. O. Grrimold, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
McCauley, J.
The plaintiff had made her claim as to what the arrangement was between her and the defendant, her brother, and the defendant had made his claim. The oafly difference between them was as to the length of time the plaintiff should continue as his housekeeper — she claiming it was during her life, and he claiming' it was to continue only while they could agree or get along together. The testimony excluded by the court had no direct tendency to sustain the claim of the defendant, because it did not purport to prove the terms of any agreement of the parties; but it showed a state of fact which must have influenced the defendant in the kind of contract or arrangement he would make with a person known to him as the plaintiff was — and to some extent helped to show whether the arrangement claimed by the plaintiff or the one claimed by the defendant was the more probable as matter of fact.
If the plaintiff was of such peevish and disagreeable temper that none of her relatives could live with her, and this was known to the defendant when the arrangement to keep house was made, these facts would strengthen the probability that the arrangement was temporary, as claimed by the' defendant, rather than for life, as claimed by the plaintiff. The proof, we think, was competent to go to the jury for what it was worth in connection with the other evidence in the case. A similar question was made and the same view taken in Allison v. Horning, 22 Ohio St. 138, and cases therein referred to.
Judgment affirmed.