Murphy v. Corrigan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 130, Oct. T., 1893, by defendant, Margaret Corrigan, executrix of James Corrigan, deceased, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1892, No. 472, on verdict for plaintiffs, Peter P. Murphy and Mary S., his wife, in right of wife. Assumpsit for domestic services. Before McClung, J. At the trial plaintiff claimed to recover for services rendered to her father as housekeeper.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 130, Oct. T., 1893, by defendant, Margaret Corrigan, executrix of James Corrigan, deceased, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1892, No. 472, on verdict for plaintiffs, Peter P. Murphy and Mary S., his wife, in right of wife. Assumpsit for domestic services. Before McClung, J. At the trial plaintiff claimed to recover for services rendered to her father as housekeeper. The evidence showed that prior to 1888, plaintiff, with her two illegitimate children, lived with her father and kept house for him. In 1888 plaintiff married Peter P. Murphy. All of the family…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice McCollum,
The burden was on the plaintiff to prove, by competent evidence, that the services for which she claimed compensation in this action were rendered under an express contract with the decedent to pay for them a stipulated sum, or what they were worth. It was for the court to determine whether the evidence, if believed, was sufficient to establish such a contract, and it *61was for the jury to decide whether it was credible. The learned trial judge charged that in order to recover it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove by clear, direct and positive evidence that…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Estate of J.A. MyersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Gwin v. Gwin, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County2013