3. SAME-PARENT AND CHILD. As evidence of the value of services rendered by claimant and of the claim of claimant that they were not gratuitously rendered, notes executed by claimant's father to him, and deposited with a third person without delivery, were competent and admissible, it also appearing that there was evidence of a promise made by the father to compensate his son for the services. 4. SAME. It is not essential to a recovery that claimant should establish a formal contract: if the facts and circumstances attending the performance of the work and its acceptance are sufficient to rebut the presumption that the services were gratuitous, and to authorize the inference that both parties acted under the understanding that they were to be paid for, the parent is liable.1 5. SAME-BILLS AND NOTES-EXECUTION. Whether a note of $700 was void for want of delivery was an immaterial question, where claimant made claim for the value of his labor, without relying on the note except as evidence of the intent of decedent and in support of testimony tending to prove an agreement to compensate claimant. 6. SAME-EVIDENCE-ADMISSIONS. It was not reversible error to exclude from the evidence defendant's offer to show that claimant originally prepared a claim for less than the amount he sought to recover in the case, and started to file it but erased that portion, which was not, so far as the record shows, presented to the commissioners. 7. SAME-TRIAL. Held, also, that an inadvertent statement of the trial court to the jury as to the amount of damages, being immediately corrected, did not warrant the reversal of the judgment. Error to Ottawa; Cogger, J., presiding. Submitted October 9, 1912. (Docket No. 9.) Decided November 8, 1912. Henry Abel presented a claim against the estate of John W. Abel which was allowed in part by the commissioners on claims. Claimant appealed to the circuit court 'The authorities on the general question of the implication of agreement to pay for services rendered by relative or member of household, are reviewed in a note in 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 873. where judgment was rendered for the full amount claimed. Defendant estate, by Cornelis Roosenraad, executor, brings error. Affirmed. Benn M. Corwin, for appellant. Smedley, Linsey & Lillie, for appellee. STONE, J. This claim was filed in the probate court of Ottawa county against the estate of John W. Abel, deceased, to recover for services performed by claimant for his father, in his lifetime, after claimant had become 21 years of age. John W. Abel died leaving a widow and ten children-two by a former wife and eight by his widow. During the father's lifetime he had made several wills, each time disposing of his property in a different way. So far as appears by this record, in every will except the last one, the testator gave each of his boys a piece of land, and provided that each boy should pay a certain amount of money to one of his sisters. The last will was made March 17, 1910. By it the testator gave to his widow one-third of all his estate, and the remainder was to be divided equally among all of his children, share and share alike. The testator died in September, 1910, and the last will was duly admitted to probate. After the will was probated, claimant went to the office of the executor, who was also the justice of the peace who drew the will and the notes hereinafter referred to, and made proof of claim based on the two notes as such, and some small items of expense that had arisen about the time of the father's death, in connection with the farm that claimant had occupied. At the first meeting of the commissioners on claims some question was raised in regard to claimant's claim, and he withdrew the first claim filed and made out a new one, as follows: Expenses on 80 acres of land of J. W. Abel, and for moneys Te 8 and 4 months labor for Johr W Abe' at $200 IC— This claim was verified by the claimant by an affidavit attached to the claim signed by him and sworn to, in which he swore that there was then due and unpaid on same, over and above all legal set offs, the sum of $193.85. After further consideration claimant struck out the item of $1,266 for labor, as appears by the erasures, and filed another claim for labor based on the two notes, as follows: To services performed in labor for John W. Abel, as evidenced by two notes given by John W. Abel to Henry Abel, one of date of June 2, 1908, for $700.00, and one of date of April 21, 1910, for $1,000.00... This was verified in like manner, the affidavit stating that there was then due and unpaid on said claims, over and above all legal set-offs, the sum of $1,700. The commissioners on claims rejected the first and last items of said first claim and allowed the remaining five items, amounting to $40.85. $1,700 00 On the second claim the commissioners rejected $700, and allowed $1,000, so that the commissioners allowed $1,000 for labor and $40.85 for money expended, making a total of $1,040.85, but rejected the items for clearing and ditching, and the $700 claimed to be for labor and services represented by the note of June 2, 1908. From this allowance by the commissioners the claimant appealed to the circuit court. On the trial in the circuit court the attorney for the claimant, in his opening statement to the jury, used the following language: "Now, in presenting these claims to the commissioners, Henry was informed that the notes were no good, that they didn't bind the estate. They were left with Mr. Roosenraad; they were not delivered. And so he put in a claim for services, for staying on the farm so many years after he was 21, amounting to $1,700. He calls it $1,700, not because it figures out exactly that, but because his father intended him to have it, having left two notes amounting to $1,700, and then he puts in a claim for things that he did after his father made his last will, and after these notes were given. He presented a claim to the commissioners on claims for this, $1,700 and the $193.85, making a total claim put in of $1,893.85. The commissioners allowed $1,040.85, which leaves $853 that we are suing for today. "The Court: Are you claiming the whole amount here? "Mr. Smedley: I went on the theory that the balance that was not allowed is all that we are litigating; that is, $853. "The Court: Is there any appeal here by the estate? "Mr. Corwin: No, but I think you can't separate this claim. He has got to prove his whole claim. "Mr. Smedley: We can prove the whole claim, then have the jury subtract, or we can subtract $1,040.85, what the commissioners have allowed." Upon the trial it was the claim of the claimant and appellee that when he was 21 years of age, in 1899, he was about to leave home; but his father told him that he would like to have him (claimant) stay at home and work, and he would give him more than he could earn elsewhere; and that he remained at home and worked for his father until his marriage. It is also claimed that the father promised to give claimant 80 acres of land, and the father built a house on the piece of land about the time of claimant's marriage in 1905; that claimant and his wife moved onto the land soon after their marriage and have lived there ever since; that claimant had improved the house and farm, believing, or supposing, that it belonged to him. By a will made in 1908 the father gave this same 80 acres of land to claimant. There was testimony tending 178 MIOH.-7. to show that the father, had frequently said that he intended to compensate claimant for his services. At the time of making the will of 1908 testator made the following note: "700.00 ZEELAND, MICH., June 2, 1908. "After my death I promise to pay to the order of Hendrick Abel the sum of seven hundred dollars. There was evidence that the father left this note with the justice of the peace who had drawn the will and note. The justice testified that this note, with others to other children, was left with him until testator's death; then he was to notify claimant about it. At the time of making the will of March 17, 1910, the will of 1908 was destroyed; but this $700 note was not taken up. When the last will was made it was prepared by the same justice. About a month after it was signed and executed the testator came to the justice and made an other note, as follows: "$1,000.00 ZEELAND, MICH., April 21, 1910. "After my death I promise to pay to the order of Hendrick Abel one thousand dollars for labor and other services rendered since his 21st birthday to this date, over and above the $700.00 note previously given. his "JOHN W. x ABEL. mark "Signed in presence of: "NELLIE ROOSENRAAD. "CORNELIS ROOSENRAAD.” Upon this subject the executor and justice, having been called as a witness for the claimant, testified, among other things, as follows: "At the time this will was made in March, 1910, the old |