Fitzpatrick v. Dooley
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court. — Hon. David H. Eby, Judge. But the true rule and tbe one on which the foregoing instruction is based is that where work is done by one person and for another and accepted' by him the law will imply a contract to pay the reasonable value of such services. This is familiar law. 8 Waits Ac. & Def., 719; Sprague v. Sea, 152 Mo. 327, 53 S. W. 1074; Sidway v. Mo. L. & L. Co., 163 Mo. 386, 63 S. W. 834.
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
This is an action to recover compensation for services rendered by the respondent as a servant in the family of the appellant. The services consisted of washing, ironing, cooking, housecleaning, milking, churning and such other duties as are incident to domestic work around the home of a farmer. The respondent went to dwell in the appellant’s family in *167June, 1885, when she was fifteen years old. She remained there until March 20, 1890, a period of about five years, and extending two years beyond her majority. The petition contains two paragraphs. The first declared on an implied promise to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Snyder v. FreeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Tyler v. BurringtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
- Sprague v. SeaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Kostuba v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Guenther v. Birkicht's AdministratorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Vosburg v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1954
- Hyde v. HoniterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Songer v. BrittainMissouri Court of Appeals · 1954
- Cole v. FitzgeraldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Kingston v. RobertsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.