From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bailey v. Fox

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Nov 10, 1977
240 S.E.2d 737 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)

Summary

In Bailey v. Fox, 78 Cal. 389, it was held that a delay of four months after the discovery of fraud in a partnership contract was fatal to the right to rescind.

Summary of this case from Wills v. Porter

Opinion

54772.

SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 2, 1977.

DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1977. REHEARING DENIED DECEMBER 1, 1977.

Quantum meruit. Gordon Superior Court. Before Judge White.

Langford, Pope Bailey, R. Thomas Pope, for appellant.

Chance, Maddox Jones, Howard Jones, R. F. Chance, for appellee.


Ed Fox filed a suit against William P. Bailey as administrator of the estate of Mattie Lou Freeman for labor and work performed for Suttle and Mattie Lou Freeman over a period of 20 years, having a reasonable value of $22,500, none of which, he alleged, he had received.

Count 1 of the complaint, based on an alleged contract to make a deed or will, was abandoned at the close of the plaintiff's evidence. Count 2 of the complaint was founded on an action in quantum meruit. The jury returned a verdict for $15,625 in Fox's favor and the administrator appeals, asserting as error the denial of his motions for directed verdict, for judgment n.o.v., and for new trial.

1. "Ordinarily, where one renders services... valuable to another, which the latter accepts, a promise is implied to pay the reasonable value thereof ..." Code § 3-107. "Value of services rendered in essence is exclusively a matter for jury determination. [Cits.]" Pembroke Steel Co. v. Technical Sales Assoc., 138 Ga. App. 744, 745 (3) ( 227 S.E.2d 491) (1976).

Fox offered seven witnesses who were neighbors and long-time friends of the Freemans and who testified that Fox was employed as a general cattle farm laborer on two farms owned by Mr. and Mrs. Freeman at a time when they were both in good health, but that as their health deteriorated Fox's duties increased and he performed general cattle farm work plus household duties, errands, chauffeur and personal services day and night. He was subject to call on a 24-hour basis seven days a week. The value of such services from 1971 through 1975 varied from $1.75 to $3 an hour. Fox received no pay after Mr. Freeman died in 1971. Mrs. Freeman told many friends that she could not get along without Fox and intended to take care of him; that she was going "to make a will and leave him an heir's part."

From the nature of the services rendered the jury was authorized to find the value to be about $10 a day, which would amount to $3,650 a year or $15,600 for the four-year period. The evidence was sufficient as to services and value thereof, and the trial court properly overruled the motions.

2. The evidence was likewise sufficient to support a charge on enrichment of the estate. The judge charged fully on all the issues and the words "contract," "implied contract" and "assumpsit" were used and defined throughout the instructions to the jury. The inadvertent use of the word "contract" instead of "implied contract" in the charge complained of did not amount to an expression or intimation of an opinion by the court, and was harmless error.

We find no grounds for reversal for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 2, 1977 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1977 — REHEARING DENIED DECEMBER 1, 1977 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.


Summaries of

Bailey v. Fox

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Nov 10, 1977
240 S.E.2d 737 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)

In Bailey v. Fox, 78 Cal. 389, it was held that a delay of four months after the discovery of fraud in a partnership contract was fatal to the right to rescind.

Summary of this case from Wills v. Porter

In Bailey v. Fox, 78 Cal. 389 [20 P. 868], plaintiff sought to rescind a contract for the purchase of one-third interest in a stock of hardware and agricultural implements on the ground of fraud.

Summary of this case from Dreiske v. Los Angeles I.S. Corp.

In Bailey v. Fox, 78 Cal. 389, [20 P. 868], where the action was to rescind a partnership contract, it was held that a delay of four months after the discovery of the fraud was fatal to a claim of right to rescind.

Summary of this case from Barkley v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society
Case details for

Bailey v. Fox

Case Details

Full title:BAILEY v. FOX

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Nov 10, 1977

Citations

240 S.E.2d 737 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)
240 S.E.2d 737

Citing Cases

United Motor S. F. Co. v. Callander

It was sold that same day in Manteca to Mr. Hooper. I knew that as soon as Mr. Hastings took the Flanders…

Payne v. Jones & Kolb

The value of services rendered by appellants was solely a jury question. Bailey v. Fox, 144 Ga. App. 195 (…