
    HELEN A. VAN KUREN, Respondent, v. JOHN SAXTON, Appellant.
    
      Masten' and servant—when relation does not exist■— Contract to pay for services or hoa/rd — when not implied where parties a/re related.
    
    Where plaintiff’s sister-in-law became a member of his family on the invitation of his wife, and with his assent, to remain with her children until she could do better, she performing services in the household, and receiving board for herself and children, no intimation being given by either party that pecuniary compensation should be made by one to the other, held, that the sister-in-law did not occupy the position of a servant, and was not liable to pay for board. That transactions of this kind between relations stand on a different footing from those between persons who are not bound to each other by such ties. In the latter case the law may, in the absence of special circumstances, imply mutual promises to pay, while in the former it will not.
    
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff", entered on the report of a referee.
    
      S. F. Filkms, for the appellant.
    
      Tucker c6 Bowen, for the respondent.
    
      
       Robinson v. Cushman, 2 Den., 152; Williams v. Hutchinson, 3 Coms., 312; S. C., 5 Barb., 122; Sharp v. Cropsey, 11 id., 224; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 48 id., 327-387.
    
   Opinion by Gilbert, J.

Judgment affirmed.  