Coulston's Estate
Coulston's Estate
Opinion of the Court
It is so entirely incredible that a domestic servant, having no other means of support but her wages, would or could remain in such service for three and a half years, and receive only one hundred dollars on account of her service, that both the auditing judge and the court in banc rejected the claim of the appellant as being insufficiently proved. The auditing judge heard the witnesses and had the opportunity of observing the manner and character of their testimony. He rejected the claim because the proof in its support failed to make out a prima facie case. In this conclusion he was confirmed by the decree of the orphans’ court, and we regard this finding as we would the verdict of a jury or the report of a master or auditor upon questions of fact, not to be disturbed except upon very clear proof of mistake. We find no such proof in the case; on the contrary we agree that the proof is far short of the kind that is required to sustain such a claim.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Coulston's Estate. Jarman's Appeal
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Decedents' estates — Glaim for domestic services — Presumption of payment — Rebuttal—Evidence. A claim against a decedent’s estate for domestic services for three and one half years at the rate of six dollars per week will not be sustained where the only witness for claimant is her daughter, who testifies that claimant only received one hundred dollars from decedent for her work, and that she had no other means of support. The presumption of payment periodically, from the custom in domestic service, is not overcome in such ease. A finding of fact by an auditing judge confirmed by the orphans’ court in banc will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court except upon very clear proof of mistake.