
    
      A. K. Patterson against M. Patterson.
    
      jthe plaint®-; “i»e of age, worked for ws wuiV ¿,ótIm¿?ñtain°an' l?™mpSFoVñ during Uie life-&5,eer. °f h'S
    
      A MOTION was made to set aside the report of referees in this cause. The plaintiff is a son of the defendant, and was born in 1773, and lived with and worked for his father, on his farm, until 1810; except that for one or two years during that time, he had the farm on shares. In 1805, or 1806, the defendant said he intended to reward the plaintiff well, that he was old, and that the plaintiff must continue with him as long as he lived, and he would reward him well, and that he should have the farm, paying legacies to his other children. In the autumn of 1810, the defendant tendered to the plaintiff 750 dollars, as a compensation for his services, for 15 years, and requested him to sign a receipt, which the plaintiff declined doing, and did not take the money. One of the witnesses stated that about five years ago, the defendant said he intended to give the plaintiff 750 dollars for his services, and had provided for it in his will, and that he should share equally with the other children. In his will, dated 22d of March, 1810, which was. produced and proved before the referees, to be duly executed, it appeared that the defendant had ordered 750 dollars to be paid to the plaintiff; but if he should receive it after the date of the will, or before the testator’s death, it was to be deemed a discharge of the bequest: and he gave all his real and personal estate to his wife for life, and, after her death, to his seven children, equally to be divided between them; and in a codicil to the will he declared that the sum directed to be paid to the plaintiff was to be in full compensation, for all his labour and services on the farm, since he came of age».
   Van. Ness, J.,

'delivered’ the .opinion,, of the .court. The,. plaintiff is entitled to a reward for.-his services, iDecause ’the, .evidence repels the;- idea, that .they ivere to he .performed g^tnitously, .(Jacobson. v. The Executors of Le, Grange, 3 Johns. Rep. 200. Le Sage v. Coussmaker and others, Esp, N. P. Rep. 187.) ■ B.ut from-, the testimony of John Patterson, as well as of several- other witnesses, it. is evident' that the.plaintiff- was' ta1be 'Compensated for--his service's. by a'provision- to b,e made'for' him, by his father,. (the, defendant,)’In-ins will; and, of.course, that hp claim for,-.compensation'was' to be made inf his father’s'lifetitpe. . The, defendant is bound to make, arid it is to be presumed will .-make, s-.uch' a* provision for the plaintiff by his w-'i;ll, as will do. him. perfect justice, anct 'tyhichmay be perfectly satisfactory to.him, or which, in-j.udgmeat of law, may amount to. a satisfaction. Should the de-fe.idant wholly Overlook . .the plaintiff-in' his *Will, this -would .’fee sueñan-act of .iujusticef that'there' can be rib doubt‘the plaintiff-'might maintain an action, and. recover, a reasonable. compensation, for his services. ' This- suit, however, -is -pfemature, and cannot be supported,. The report- of 'the ,referees^ must, therefore, be set aside» • ■ • - ■ ■ ■ ■ . ' .

Motion-granted;,/  