Freeman v. Freeman

Citations

• 65 Ill. 106

Syllabus

<p>Parent and child—^presumption as to pa/yfor services after majority. Where a child remains with his father after his majority, the presumption will be, in the absence of a contract to pay for services, or circumstances from which one may be implied, that no compensation was to be given for such services.</p> <p>2. But where a son, some time after his majority, left his parents, and commenced business on his own account, and was afterwards induced by his father to return, all his other sons having left him, and he continued to labor for his father for many years, managing his affairs and supporting his parents, for which he received nothing but his board, scanty clothing and a little spending money: Reid, that it was but reasonable to presume that the father intended to pay, and the son to receive pay, for his labor, either in money or by devise in his father’s will.</p> <p>3. And in such a case, where the proof showed that the father intended to compensate such son, by devising his farm to him, but was killed before he had made his will: Reid, that a verdict in favor of the son for services, against the father’s estate, for the time the son labored within five years prior to the father’s death, would not be disturbed.</p> <p>4. Statute oe limitations—-for services. Where a son, who, after his majority, had left his father, was by the latter induced to return and remain in his service for 23 years, under the expectation of being compensated by devise in his father’s will, but the father, being accidentally killed, failed to make any will, and the son filed his claim for services, against the father’s estate: Reid, that, the statute of limitations being pleaded, the son could only recover for his services for the five years next before presenting his claim, deducting the time that elapsed between the death of the father and the day fixed by the administrators for the adjustment of claims.</p>