
    (First Circuit—Hamilton Co., O., Cir’t Court
    Jan. Term, 1900.)
    Before Smith, Swing and Giffen, JJ.
    IN RE ESTATE OF JOHN P. SKELTON, deceased.
    
      Ghild nursing parent — Presumption of compensation—
    
    While it is not to be presumed that services of a child in taking care of and nursing a parent are to be compensated unless an understanding to that effect exists, yet compensation will be allowed for such services in the absence of an express understanding to that effect, where the circumstances are such that the child was justified in assuming that she would be compensated for such services.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
   • 8 WING, J.

We are of the opinion that the j'udgment of the court of common pleas in this cause should be affirmed.

HThe evidence was clear and certain as to the character of the services incurred by Mrs. Martin to her father Mr. Skelton, and the value of the services was also shown with equal clearness, and the judgment was not excessive if the relation of debtor and creditor existed. There is however room to doubt whether the services were rendered with the understanding between the parties that Mrs. Martin was to be paid for the same; but we are of the opinion that the court was justified in finding that in rendering the services Mrs. Martin, was authorized to believe that she would reoeive compensation for her services, and that Mr. Skelton understood that they were so rendered, and that he received them expecting to pay for the same. The circumstances and relations of the parties, together with the declarations of Mr. Skelton, would seem to authorize •uch a conclusion. It is shown that they were not living together as parent and child, for it is fair to conclude that Mr. Skelton lived with his daughter in her home, and that he paid for his board by paying $16 per month for the rent of the house. It is also fairly shown that Mrs. Martin had no property, but depended largely upon her own work to support herself and her family of four children. Mr. Skelton had property, and was able to pay for the services of this kind, which he so badly needed. He required all of Mrs. Martin’* services. He compelled her to quit working for others where she was raising money required to support her children in order to take care of him, and he could hardly expect her to do this without receiving compensation, especially when he was able to pay her and she needed the compensation to discharge an obligation which was more obligatory on her than his care, viz. the support of her children. Nor do we see how she could perform this work without expecting, under these circumstances, to receive pay for the same. The ciroumstanoes and the relations of parties are always to be looked to by the court to ascertain the true relation of the parties, and in this particular case, we think, it goes a long way« towards showing that Mrs. Martin was to be paid for her services. But in addition to the court being in possession of these facts, there was direct evidence to the effect that Mr. Skelton told others that Mrs. Martin would be well paid for the services rendered to him, and that

within the control of the court. The party must enter notice on the record. Notice to the judge or court is not a compliance with the statute, and the court cannot cure the omission by a nunc pro tunc entry of the notice.

ERRORS.

r Page 209: In France v. McKenzie, the counsel were Seney & Sayler and John W. Snyder, for France; JohnK, Bohn and Cameron & Cameron for McKenzie.

Page 281: In Bacon v. Noble, the counsel were Seney & Sayler and John K. Bohn, for Bacon; Brewer & Brewer, for Noble.

Page 336: In Buser v. Burkhardt it is stated that at the January Term, 1900, of the Hamilton county circuit court, Smith, Swing and Cox, JJ,, were on the bench. It should have been Smith, Swing and Giffen, JJ.  
    
      ERRORS.
    r Page 209: In France v. McKenzie, the counsel were Seney & Sayler and John W. Snyder, for France; JohnK, Bohn and Cameron & Cameron for McKenzie.
    Page 281: In Bacon v. Noble, the counsel were Seney & Sayler and John K. Bohn, for Bacon; Brewer & Brewer, for Noble.
    Page 336: In Buser v. Burkhardt it is stated that at the January Term, 1900, of the Hamilton county circuit court, Smith, Swing and Cox, JJ,, were on the bench. It should have been Smith, Swing and Giffen, JJ.
  