
    Matter of the Estate of George W. Todd, Deceased.
    (Surrogate’s Court, Monroe County,
    April, 1905.)
    Decedent’s estate — Claim for services — Eight of deceased to fix exorbitant compensation.
    A person may give an exorbitant price for a thing if he sees fit and. even though he acknowledges that the price he gives is in effect a charity to a great extent, yet a promise to so pay is en-forcible.
    Upon the hearing of a claim against an estate upon an instrument wherein the deceased, a roving peddler, for services rendered to him by claimant promised that she should be paid $5,000 after his death from his estate “for all my trouble and all her kindness to me ”, it appeared that for several years he stayed at claimant’s house for several days at-a time, five or six times a year, absolutely without recompense and more than once was cleaned up from a lousy condition while there. Held, that his calling it a “Unique Charity” was evidence that he knew the promised compensation was beyond the actual value of the services rendered but that he had an absolute legal right to do what he did and that the claim was enforcible against his estate.
    Claim presented upon the following instrument contained in a patent medicine almanac:
    
      “ Onondaga ITill, Sept 16th, 1899.
    
      “ Unique Charity.
    “ I promise Maggie Mattice five thousand dollars, when I die for all my trouble and all her kindness to me I also Hied her canary bird to-day for which she must have her pay for this account must be payed after my death from my estate.
    
      “ Geoege W. Todd, Peddler, the man behind the \ ■' Wheelbarrow
    
    The testimony presented upon the hearing showed that the maker of the note for several years had stopped at the house of' claimant and her husband for several days at a time, üre or six times a year and that no charge had ever been made for his entertainment and care. At the close of the testimony, offered in behalf of the claimant, counsel for the administrator moved to dismiss the claim upon the ground that the paper in evidence was not a promissory note, that it did not acknowledge an indebtedness and was without consideration, that it appeared upon tire face of the paper that it was an engagement to give only and did not contain a promise or obligation to pay the money to the claimant, that it appeared upon its face that it was an act of charity and that the paper was not properly executed in accordance with the statutes of the State; that the paper was a nudum factum; that it was an executory contract, given without consideration.
    C. D. Kiehel, for administrator, The Trust and Guaranty Company of Canada.
    J. R. Collins (H. F. Remington, of counsel), for claimant.
   Benton, S.

I understand there was no relationship between these parties; hence, all services import a promise to pay. The evidence shows services were rendered, and services which a man in his situation 'would very likely appreciate. He came there from time to time, he stayed there absolutely without recompense, he was cleaned up from a lousy condition more often than once while he was there, and he killed the canary on this particular day. How, he was a close and grasping man, he knew the value of money, that is evident. He knew that $5,000 was more than compensation in the market, for these things which had been rendered to him, and hence he put that heading Unique Charity,” hut I understand the law to be that a person may give an exorbitant price for a thing if he sees- fit to do it, and even though he acknowledges himself that the price he gives is in effect a charity to a great extent, yet a promise to so pay is a good promise and enforcible in the law. They may fix such a measure of compensation for services as they may see fit. He saw fit to put a value on it with those words, the trouble and the services express the consideration for the paper, what he was paying for, as well as the words, “ the canary.” How, we do better justice to give the words the practical interpretation than to depend upon subtleties which probably do not enter into the minds of people when they are doing such a thing. I think the man there wanted to make a payment in consideration for values which he had received. He had a right to do that. He wanted to make a compensation which he knew to he beyond the actual value, but which he was willing to put as a value, and hence he called it a “ Unique Charity.” That is my interpretation of it. I think he had an absolutely legal right to do it, and that the paper is a valid paper and enforcible.

Decreed accordingly.  