## Facts

- John Hertzog reached majority around 1825 but continued living with his father, George Hertzog, and working on George’s farm for many years.
- Except for about one year away, John remained in the household and worked on the farm until 1842, when he married; he and his wife then lived in George’s home and continued working.
- George later placed John and his wife on another farm George owned; George and his wife eventually moved into the same home with John and remained there until George’s death in 1849.
- Witnesses testified that proceeds of the farm operations went to George and were used, at least in part, to pay for the farm property.
- Witnesses also testified that George made general statements that he “would pay” John for his labor and that John had repeatedly requested payment but was put off.
- No wage accounts or formal records were kept between father and son.
- John also sought to recover money allegedly lent to a third party that belonged to John’s wife and was lent before April 11, 1848.
- The trial court permitted the jury to treat George’s statements about paying as evidence of a wage contract and entered judgment for John.
- George’s estate sought review in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. Whether an implied contract to pay wages arises when an adult child continues to live with and work for a parent in the same household.
2. Whether a parent’s general declarations, made after years of such work, that the parent “would pay” the child are sufficient evidence from which a jury may infer a binding wage contract.
3. Whether, for money belonging to a married woman and lent before April 11, 1848, the husband may sue to recover it without joining the wife.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial.
- The court held that the father–adult son living-and-working arrangement does not, by itself, imply a contract obligating the father to pay wages.
- The court held it was error to permit a jury to infer a wage contract from the father’s general declarations of an intention to pay for past labor.
- The court held that money belonging to a married woman and lent before April 11, 1848 could be sued for by the husband alone without joining the wife.

## Legal Principles

- True contracts—whether express or implied in fact—rest on the parties’ mutual intention; an implied contract is inferred from conduct and circumstances indicating a real agreement.
- “Constructive” (implied-in-law) contractual liability is a legal fiction used to fit a nonconsensual duty to a contractual remedy and is distinct from a contract based on actual mutual assent.
- In a parent–adult child household setting, services are presumed referable to the family relationship; compensation requires proof of an actual mutual understanding for wages beyond mere co-residence and labor.
- A parent’s indefinite, after-the-fact statements of an intention to compensate for long-standing household labor are insufficient, standing alone, to prove an existing wage contract.
- For transactions predating April 11, 1848, the husband may sue in his own name to recover money lent that belonged to his wife, without joining her as a party.

## Conclusion

The court rejected an inferred wage contract for an adult son’s long-term farm labor performed while living within his father’s household, ruling that familial services are presumed gratuitous absent evidence of a mutual wage agreement and that general promises to pay did not prove such a contract; it also affirmed that the husband alone could sue to recover a pre-1848 loan of the wife’s money.


Hertzog v. Hertzog, 29 Pa. 465 (Pa. 1857)