Hughes v. Keichline

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Hughes v. Keichline, 168 Pa. 115 (Pa. 1895)
31 A. 887; 1895 Pa. LEXIS 765
Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Williams

Hughes v. Keichline

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The learned court below fairly submitted the question of employment and payment of wages on the basis of a quantum meruit to the jury, and the jury has found against the plaintiff on these questions of fact. The will of the testatrix was clearly admissible because the evidence in support of the plaintiff’s claim under a contract consisted merely of loose declarations of the deceased and, as we held in Barhite’s Appeal, 126 Pa. 404, such declarations may mean a provision by will. It was competent for the jury to know what had been given to the plaintiff by the deceased whether during her life or by her will to take effect after her death.. It was not conclusive upon the plaintiff, but it was for the jury to say what effect should be given to it.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Rebecca Hughes v. Caroline Keichline
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
Decedents' Estates — Glaim for services — Evidence—Declarations—Will. In an action against a decedent’s estate for services, where plaintiff relies upon declarations of the deceased that the services were to be paid for, a will showing a legacy to the plaintiff is admissible in evidence. In such a case it is proper for the jury to know what had been given to plaintiff by the deceased, — whether during her life, or by her will, to take effect after her death. Such evidence is not conclusive upon the plaintiff, but it is for the jury to say what effect should be given to it.