OPINION OF COURT.

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

It is a fundamental principle of law that where, under such circumstances, services have been rendered and support furnished, without any expectation of payment, the law will not permit a recovery, for the reason that services rendered and support furnished under such circumstances amount to a gratuity.

The defendant in error relies on the ease of Pretzinger v. Pretzinger, 45 OS. 452. The holding in that case was distinguished and modified in the case of Fulton v. Fulton, 52 OS. 229, which was followed in Douglas v. Douglas, 22 O. C. C. 223 (affirmed 64 OS. 606.) As was pointed out in these cases, the defendant in error in this case. at no time requested the court, awarding the custody of the child Clay Thompson to his father, to modify its order, nor did she request the court to make any provision for the minor’s support. She retained the child and received his services, with full knowledge that the custody of the child had been awarded to the father.

The law presumes that the support was furnished without any expectation of recovery, -and was furnished as a gratuity.

Our conclusion is that, under the rule stated in the case of Kimel v. Dorshimer, supra, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is contrary to law, and is hereby reversed and held for naught. This court will *185 enter the judgment that the court below should have entered.

Judgment will be entered for the plaintiff in error.