Case Name: BRUCE v. GREEN ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-12-19
Citations: 118 S.C. 27
Docket Number: 10795
Parties: BRUCE v. GREEN ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 27–30

Head Matter:
10795
BRUCE v. GREEN ET AL.
(110 S. E. 77)
Executors and Administrators—Finding Against Claimant For Services Sustained.—On a claim against the estate of a decedent for services rendered, evidence held to sustain a finding against claimant.
Before Prince, J., Greenville, April, 1921.
Affirmed.
Proceedings by J. J. Bruce, administrator of the estate of Elizabeth Langston, deceased, against Mary A. Green and others, to sell property for partition and to pay debts. On reference to a master, Annie Lawson filed a claim for services. The claim was disallowed, the report of the master was affirmed on exceptions, and claimant appeals.
The decree of Judge Prince was as follows:
“The master filed his report in the above case on the claims filed against the estates of Elizabeth and M. L. Langston disallowing the claims filed by Mrs. Sallie Lawson and O. Perry Brown and also disallowing the greater portion of the claim filed by Mrs. Jessie Brothers. No exceptions were filed to the master’s report except by the attorney for Mrs. .Lawson and O. Perry Brown, and this case was heard by me upon their exceptions to the master’s report. The testimony shows that Mrs. Langston was a very old woman, who was a professional beggar. After her husband’s death, Sallie Lawson went to live with her and they went on begging trips. The proceeds of such trips seem to have been used by them for their support. Mrs. Lawson testified that in consideration of her living with Mrs. Langston and taking care of her that the latter was to give Mrs. Lawson upon her death the house and lot owned by Mrs. Langston. Upon argument before me it was admitted that Mrs. Lawson could not take the specific property, but that the agreement to which she testified should avail her to show that Mrs. Langston intended to compensate her for her services. I have carefully considered all the testimony in the case, but have been unable to find any specific testimony which would warrant me in saying what would be reasonable compensation to Mrs. Lawson for such services as she may have rendered. The testimony is vague and indefinite. It does not show what time was spent in begging expeditions, how much was received from that source, nor how it ,was spent. It does not show how much time was devoted, by Mrs. Lawson to caring for' and nursing Mrs. Langston, nor does it show what specific services were rendered by the former to the latter. The Court is not permitted to guess at the value of services rendered, and the testimony is too vague and indefinite to enable me to arrive at even an approximate estimate of what services, if any, were rendered and the value of said services.
“As to the claim of O. Perry Brown the same condition exists. In his testimony, when asked what the services were worth, he could only say that he guessed they were worth about $100; but he does-not point out the specific services rendered, nor does his testimony show what his services, if any, were worth. As to this claim the Court is in the same situation as in the claim filed by Mrs. Lawson.
“It is therefore ordered that the claims filed by Mrs. Sallie Lawson and O. Perry Brown be, and the same are hereby, disallowed, and that the report of the master on claims herein filed be, and the same is hereby, confirmed.
Further ordered that this case be re-referred to the master to ascertain and report what would be a reasonable fee for Messrs. Martin & Blythe, attorneys for the administrator, in this action.”
Mr. Adam C. Welborn, for appellant,
cites: Services having been rendered the lazv presumes a promise to pay: 3 Black 161.
Messrs. Martin & Blythe, for respondent,
cite-: Bindings of fact in equity case, or in a lazv case referred by consent, affirmed by the. Circuit Court will not be disturbed on appeal unless unsupported by any evidence: 13 S. C. 37; 74 S. C. 189; 82 S. C. 40; 72 S. C. 270; 90 S. C. 319; 77 S. C. 414; 78 S. C. 457; 95 S. C. 245. That which was originally intended as a gratuity cannot afterward be converted into a debt: 2 Bay (2 S. C. L.) 101; 2 Bail; (18 S. C. L.) 308.
December 19, 1921.

Opinion:
- The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
Mrs. Langston owned a lot and an interest in another lot. Mrs. Lawson lived with her and they worked together, or with common purpose, when not together, unless they- were at outs with each other. The business was street begging. Mrs. Langston died and Mrs. Lawson put in a bill against Mrs. Langston's estate for $1,500, for services rendered. The master and Circuit Judge found against Mrs. Lawson's claim and she appealed.
There are several exceptions, but they are not separately stated in argument and need not be separately treated here.
The findings of the master and Circuit Judge are fully sustained by the evidence. There was no evidence to sustain an account for money against Mrs. Langston's estate. There is no evidence that Mrs. Lawson performed any specific act of service. The only evidence of their terms of association was that at times Mrs. Langston expressed her purpose to give her house to Mrs. Lawson for her services, but there was no evidence that she made any effort to do so or had.in any way bound herself to do so.
The judgment is affirmed.
Let the decree of Judge Prince be reported.