Hendryx v. Turner

Citations

• 109 Wash. 672
• 187 P. 372
• 1920 Wash. LEXIS 945

Syllabus

<p>Work and Labor (4)—Implied Contract—Relationship oe Parties—Brother-in-Law. Where a husband and wife reared an infant son of the wife’s deceased sister at the instance of the brother-in-law, the relationship of the parties is not such as to rebut the presumption of an implied contract to pay for the services, and does not bar recovery without any express contract to pay, in the absence of any family relation between the parties involved.</p> <p>Same (11)—Pleading—Issues, Prooe and Variance. A complaint alleging the performance of special services at the special instance and request of defendant and that the reasonable value was a certain sum, states a cause of action on quantum, meruit or implied contract, notwithstanding an allegation that defendant agreed to pay such reasonable compensation, which amounts only to a conclusion of law, and authorizes recovery without proof of an express contract.</p> <p>Same (4, 14) —Implied Contract—Evidence—Sufficiency. An action on quantum meruit for rearing a child is sustained by plaintiff’s evidence that théy never intended to make any charge because the child had been given to them to rear as their own, until, in habeas corpus proceedings by the father, the child had been taken from them on the father’s evidence that the child had not been given to them; since eliminating evidence of such gift as inapplicable, the law implies a promise to pay from the other established facts.</p>