Cobb, Rollins & Co. v. Bishop
Cobb, Rollins & Co. v. Bishop
Opinion of the Court
'The opinion of the court was delivered by
We think the judgment of the county court, discharging the trustee, should be affirmed. It is evident that -when the son took his father’s family home, he did not become legally liable to pay for what be might choose to do upon the farm. The ■disclosure is, that the son was induced to do it from filial duty, as the father was poor, and destitute of ahorne for himself and family.
The commissioner does not even find that there was any expectation in the son to pay for the personal services -of the family, except by giving them a support; or auy expectation in the father to ask it. If this family arrangement, between the father and son, had been entered into in lad faith, and with an intent to avoid claims ■of the creditors of the father, or to enable him to acquire a false •credit, it might present a different question-; but there is no such ■finding, and it is not to he presumed. It is no unusual family .arrangement.
Judgment of the court below affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Cobb, Rollins & Co. v. Charles Bishop, Trustee of John , Bishop
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- A son, from filial duty, took his father and his family, who were poor and had no other home, to his own house and there supported them. The father labored for the sou while so living with him, and his services were worth more than the support furnished, but he had never claimed any further compensation, and the son had not expected to make any. Heldy in the absence of any proof of bad faith in entering into this arrangement, that the son was not chargeable, as the trustee of the father, for the value of the services above that of the support.