Marx v. Marx

³⁸⁶ Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case the action was brought by the appellee, George Marx, to recover for board furnished by him to his father, the defendant’s testator, from September 15th, 1901, to June 16th, 1912. At the time of the institution of this suit an action was brought against this defendant by Augusta Marx, wife of the appellee, to recover for services rendered by her to the decedent, during the same period of time. The case of the wife was first heard, and by agreement of counsel, it was understood and agreed that the evidence taken in her case should “be considered as regiven in this case with the exception that the testimony of George Marx * * * as far as it relates to any transaction or conversation with John Marx, Senior,” should not be regarded or considered as evidence in the husband’s case; and it was agreed that the exceptions there taken were to be made and considered in this case.

The additional evidence consists chiefly of the testimony of Augusta Marx as to transactions and conversations of her husband with the decedent in relation to board furnished by him to the decedent. The law of this case, as to the right of the plaintiff to recover,- is the law of that case, Charles Marx, Ex’r. v. Augusta Marx, ante, p. 373, and we will not prolong this opinion liy again stating it here. ' The prayers are practically the same, changed only to suit the character of the claim, with the same rulings thereon. The testimony of George Marx in the wife’s case, as far as' it relates to transactions and conversations with the decedent, is not to be considered in his case, but in substitution for it is the testimony of the wife, and after a careful consideration of her testimony, in connection with the testimony of others, so fully set out in our opinion in her case, we find no error in the Court’s rulings upon the prayers offered by the defendant asking that the case be taken from the jury for want of legally sufficient evidence. As we have passed upon the prayers in that case, it be ³⁸⁷ comes unnecessary, because of tbe similarity