¶1 The charge of his Honor is in conformity to the doctrine announced in Hauser v. Sain, at this term. If by reason of the relationship and the other circumstances, to wit: plaintiff and his wife, had the possession of the testator’s farm on an agreement to furnish him with board for the use of the farm ; the testator by his will gives the land to his daughter, the wife of plaintiff; no time is fixed during which the plaintiff was to board the testator for the use of the farm. So we must take it that the agreement covered the whole time iip to the death of the testator. They . agreed to board him for “ better or for worse ” up to his death, and although for the last seven months the plaintiffs were subjected to heavy charges, we can see no principle upon which they can get rid of the special contract and fall back upon a qu/t, ///// ■>/ .
¶2 The verdict is not very intelligible, but on the whole, we are satisfied the jury, although they may not have exactly comprehended the charge, mean to say that the plaintiff, while the services were being rendered, had no intention of making a charge for extra services and expenses.
¶3 No error.
¶4 Pee CuRiam. Judgment affirmed.