Patton v. Conn
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata county: Of July Term 1885, No. 132. This was a feigned issue, wherein Rebecca J. Patton was plaintiff and Daniel Conn and other creditors of Thomas Patton were defendants.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata county: Of July Term 1885, No. 132. This was a feigned issue, wherein Rebecca J. Patton was plaintiff and Daniel Conn and other creditors of Thomas Patton were defendants. The following are the facts as they appeared on the trial before Barnett, P. J.: Thomas Patton, on February 6th, 1884, being indebted to Daniel Conn and others, the defendants in this ease, gave to Alfred J. Patton, in trust for his wife, Rebecca J. Patton, the plaintiff, his judgment note for $1,695. This note was entered of record in the Common Pleas of Juniata County, an…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Clark
It is a most familiar rule of the law, that where services are rendered by one person for another, at his request, a promise will be implied to pay the price ; but this implication may be rebutted by proof of such a relation existing between the parties as repels the idea of a contract.
Therefore, a daughter cannot recover wages for services rendered, in the nursing and care of her father, except on clear proof of an express contract to that effect. The same rule obtains, when the daughter is an adult and married. Although after marriage her services belong to her husband, yet if the wife…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ulrich v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Meloy v. KellSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928
- Williams v. HarrisSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
- Estate of J.A. MyersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931