Court Opinion

ID: 9529081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:47:16.101755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:39.241661
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Justice,
with whom KEETON, Justice, concurs
(dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority of the Court that the instruction given on the burden of proof is erroneous and warrants a reversal of the judgment. I am of the further opinion that, not only should the judgment be reversed, but the action should he ordered dismissed.
Respondent relies upon the propositions:
First: That Miss Fuller performed services for Mr. Barthel for value, and
Second: That the existent relationship between Miss Fuller and Mr. Barthel created an implied contract for payment of value by Mr. Barthel for such services, i. e., that the presumption attains that such services were to be paid for.
The first proposition is not established beyond mere inference, i. e., it is not established as a fact; therefore the presumption stated in the second proposition will *408not attain, since such presumption cannot rest upon an inference.
There is no evidence that the alleged services performed by Miss Fuller were to be paid for or.that they were intended or contemplated to be performed for value; nor that either party at any time contemplated any payment whatever. The evidence fails to show that Miss Fuller performed any services other than gratuitous favors. Miss Fuller was not paid any sum during the entire period of time of alleged employment and no evidence was adduced to show, or tending to show that she expected payment. The services performed, or alleged to have been performed, by Miss Fuller were of a nature that any friend would or might perform for another, growing out of and because of friendship.
The evidence fails to show any business relationship between Miss Fuller and Mr. Barthel or any intent on the part of either party to create any such relationship. The record will not support even an inference that the services were performed for value. Such being so, there is nothing upon which to base the presumption that the services performed by Miss Fuller were to be paid for.
The rule is applicable here, that a presumption resting upon a presumption, or an inference upon an inference is not proof, and that the burden of proof cannot be so sustained.
The judgment should be reversed and the action dismissed.