Thornton v. Grange
New York Supreme Court
THE plaintiff was a niece of Chillingsworth Colwell, the defendant’s intestate, and went to live in his family, in Octobér, 1856. She lived with him, taking care of his wife, who was, for several years, a paralytic, of his daughter during her latter illness, and of her child after its mother’s death. She was, for part of the time, the only friend in the family, and had the supervision of the household affairs.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiff was a niece of Chillingsworth Colwell, the defendant’s intestate, and went to live in his family, in Octobér, 1856. She lived with him, taking care of his wife, who was, for several years, a paralytic, of his daughter during her latter illness, and of her child after its mother’s death. She was, for part of the time, the only friend in the family, and had the supervision of the household affairs. She ceased to live with the intestate in March, 1865. In November, 1869, her uncle was found to be a person of unsound mind, and it was found that he had been of unsound mind from…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Mullin, P. J.
Should a daughter go to live with her father, at his request, and there was no agreement whatever as to wages, it would be presumed that she went to live with Mm not as a servant, but as a member of Ms family, without compensation, except such as a parent ordinarily gives to Ms children. (Robinson v. Cushman, 2 Denio, 149. Dye v. Kerr, 15 Barb. 444.) When, however, the person taken into the family is not a child, but a more distant relation, the presumption of serving without pay is less strong, and slight circumstances will be sufficient to overcome it. (Robinson v.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Robinson v. . RaynorNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Robinson v. CushmanNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Dye v. KerrNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Van Vleck v. BurroughsNew York Supreme Court · 1849
3Cited by3 opinions
- Plate v. DurstWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1896
- Walters v. MayhewNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- White v. KnowlesNew York Supreme Court · 1889