Case Name: Andrew Wysowatcky, as Administrator of the Estate of Maude Lee v. Iola Lyons
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1958-07-21
Citations: 137 Colo. 578
Docket Number: No. 18,222
Parties: Andrew Wysowatcky, as Administrator of the Estate of Maude Lee v. Iola Lyons
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 578–581

Head Matter:
No. 18,222.
Andrew Wysowatcky, as Administrator of the Estate of Maude Lee v. Iola Lyons
(328 P. [2d] 576)
Decided July 21, 1958.
Mr. Thomas P. O’Brien, Mr. Martin I. Steinberg, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. James C. Flanigan, for defendant in error.
En Banc.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Knauss
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff in error (herein referred to as administrator) sued out a writ of error to review a judgment of the District Court in allowing the claim of Iola Lyons (herein referred to as claimant) against the estate of Maude Lee, deceased, for services rendered to. said decedent.
Claimant filed a claim against the estate of Maude Lee, for "Personal services rendered to decedent, Maude Lee, also known as Maud Lee during her lifetime from June 1950 to death $750.00."
Three witnesses testified on behalf of claimant. No evidence was offered by the administrator. The trial court allowed the claim in full.
Decedent was an elderly person and unable to travel conveniently by public conveyance to places where she had occasion to go. Witnesses testified that claimant performed various and numerous services for Maude Lee over a period of years. .
No witness testified as to the value of the services rendered by claimant, hence this case is controlled by our holding in Carl v. Northcutt, Administrator, 48 Colo. 47, 108 Pac. 994. There this court said: "The verdict directed by the District Court was right. The evidence offered to show the quality and the amount of service was meager, indefinite and unsatisfactory. Not a vestige of evidence was introduced to establish the worth of that service, whatever it may have been. In the total absence of such testimony no part of the claim can properly be allowed." [Emphasis supplied.] See, also, Bloom v. Nathan Vehon Co., 341 Ill. 200, 173 N.E. 270, 98 C.J.S. 790, Section 47, 58 Am. Jur. 560, Section 62.
In a hearing on a claim against an estate no formal pleadings are required. The only place in this entire record where the sum of $750.00 appears is in.the sworn claim filed by Claimant. The claim on file has no evidentiary value and is merely the statement of a demand made against an estate to be proved in the same manner and by like evidence as would be required in other cases where one defends as an administrator. Ac cepting the allegations of the claim as proof is to allow the claimant to prove her demand by her own pleading.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
Mr. Justice Frantz specially concurs.