Court Opinion

ID: 9688681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:00:29.570908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:41.113220
License: Public Domain

Gillespie, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I concur in the part of the decision construing Item X of the will. With deference, I do not think the Dunns were entitled to recover anything from the estate. However, assuming they were entitled to additional compensation, I think the amount allowed was excessive. Therefore, I concur in the modification.
As I construe the chancellor’s findings, he found that the Dunns undertook to render the services to Mr. Collins under an agreement that in return therefor the Dunns *650would receive free house rent; and that there was no contract for making a will. It is true that the chancellor found that the Dunns were led to believe that Mr. Collins would leave them something under his will. Under the chancellor’s finding, the hope and expectation of the Dunns that they would receive something under Collins ’ will cannot be the basis of any recovery. Nothing then is left but the contract and the compensation of the Dunns was fixed thereby. Free house rent was the measure of their compensation. The majority has superimposed upon the contract additional compensation on a quantum meruit basis. There must be a single standard for measuring compensation in a matter of this kind. If the contract provided for compensation- for the services rendered by the Dunns — and it did — the contract is the standard. If the contract had not provided for the measure of compensation, the standard would be quantum meruit.