
    Henry Fleer, Resp’t, v. John Finken et al., Adm’rs, App’lts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed July 2, 1891.)
    
    Decedent’s estates—Claim: against.
    Plaintiff occupied his aunt’s house under an agreement to pay rent, and boarded her therein, for which she promised to pay. Held, that the relationship between them was insufficient to impose upon him any obligation for.her support, and that he was entitled to compensation from her estate for the board, lodging and washing supplied to her.
    ' Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee.
    Reference of a disputed claim against an estate. The claim presented amounted to $3,068, for board, lodging and washing furnished to decedent between June, 1879, and June, 1887, on which $241 had been paid in 1885 and 1886, leaving due the sum of $2,827. During this period the plaintiff occupied a house belonging to the decedent under an agreement to pay rent therefor.
    
      Hugo Hirsh, for app’lts; Stephen B. Jacobs, for resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

—This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee.

The plaintiff presented a claim against the estate of Treno Yung to her administrators, which was rejected and referred to a referee for determination under the statute.

The referee reported in favor of the plaintiff and a judgment was entered upon his report.

The claim against the deceased was large and had accumulated during her life, and was properly viewed with suspicion by the administrators, but the proof produced in its support upon the trial found favor with the referee and commanded his belief, and it was natural and unaffected by any inherent improbability.

The proof offered by the defendant was in part stricken from the record because it was inadmissible, and what remained was entirely insufficient to answer the case made by. the plaintiff.

The relationship existing between the plaintiff and the deceased was insufficient to impose upon him any obligations for her support, and there was, moreover, proof of a promise on the part of the deceased to pay for the same. The statute of limitations does not apply.

We find no error in the record and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.  