Doyle v. Gibson

Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The record in this case presents twenty-nine bills of exception, and covers 164 pages, but the case is, nevertheless, a comparatively simple one, so .that it will not be necessary to consider in detail each of the bills of exceptions, nor seriatim all of the rulings of the Court upon questions of admissibility of evidence or action upon the prayers. The case arises in this manner: John Conway, a veteran of the Civil War, was an inmate of the Soldiers’ Home at Hampton, Virginia. He made periodical visits to Baltimore during the time that he was there, and that he might have a definite location in that city, kept a room, for which he paid a trifling sum, at the home of Mrs. Mary Gibson, the original plaintiff in this case.

In July, 1908, Conway was discharged from the Soldiers’ Home, and upon that discharge went to Baltimore, and thereafter, until the twentieth of April, 1911, the date of his death, occupied a room at Mrs. Gibson’s, the rental of which had been increased from the former price of $2 a month to $3. After his death, Mrs. Gibson presented an account against his estate for nursing from July, 1908, to the time of his death, amounting to $888, and for board from April 6th, 1911, to April 20th, 1911, during which he was confined to his room, of $10— and for bedding and matting which had become unfit for further use by reason of his occupancy of the room, of ³⁸ $18.20. Payment thereof was refused by the administrator, and this suit was instituted. While there was some conflict in the evidence, testimony was given tending to show that during the entire period from 1908 to 1911, Conway was in the habit of indulging in periodical sprees, at which time he required care and nursing, and -also during the periods immediately following these sprees, when he was recovering from the effects of them.

Whatever may be the rule of law outside of Maryland, the decisions in this State have firmly established our own policy. In Gill v. Staylor, 93 Md. 453 , it was said, “If the plaintiff was not a member of the decedent’s family then the rendering of the services is prima facie evidence of their acceptance and of an obligation to pay what they were worth, if there be no evidence of an express contract to pay a definite sum.” And in Wallace v. Schaub, 81 Md. 594 , “As between persons not members of the same family, the mere fact of rendering services useful to the defendant would furnish prima facie evidence of their acceptance, and in the absence of some proof to the contrary, would raise an obligation to pay what they were worth,” citing Spencer v. Trafford, 42 Md. 20 . In Harper v. Davis, 115 Md. 353 , this Court said: “When no family relation exists between the parties the law implies a promise to pay for services rendered and accepted, and the burden is on the party resisting payment to show that no charge was to be made, if the rendition and acceptance of the services are proven.” See also, Bixler v. Sellman, 77 Md. 496 . In Bouic v. Maught, 76 Md. 440 ; Alvey, C. J., declared the law as already set forth.

That was a suit for services rendered to a deceased in nursing; .the evidence showed that the