Ortman v. Ortman

*527OPINION

By BARNES, J.

It' is our conclusion that the trial court was not in error in overruling this motion. The obligation was upon the plaintiff 'to allege and prove that any services rendered by them was under a promise to pay or such circumstances as would imply such promise. In the absence of such showing the inference might arise that the services were rendered voluntarily.

The fact that the contract could not be specifically enforced under the statute of frauds would not make it objectionable in an action upon quantum meruit. The rule is well recognized that where one received services or…