Van. Ness, J.,
delivered’ the .opinion,, of the .court. The,. plaintiff is entitled to a reward for.-his services, iDecause ’the, .evidence repels the;- idea, that .they ivere to he .performed g^tnitously, .(Jacobson. v. The Executors of Le, Grange, 3 Johns. Rep. 200. Le Sage v. Coussmaker and others, Esp, N. P. Rep. 187.) ■ B.ut from-, the testimony of John Patterson, as well as of several- other witnesses, it. is evident that the.plaintiff- was ta1be Compensated for--his services. by aprovision- to b,e madefor him, by his father,. (the, defendant,)’In-ins will; and, of.course, that hp claim for,-.compensationwas to be made inf his father’slifetitpe. . The, defendant is bound to make, arid it is to be presumed will .-make, s-.uch a* provision for the plaintiff by his w-i;ll, as will do. him. perfect justice, anct tyhichmay be perfectly satisfactory to.him, or which, in-j.udgmeat of law, may amount to. a satisfaction. Should the de-fe.idant wholly Overlook . .the plaintiff-in his *Will, this -would .’fee sueñan-act of .iujusticef thatthere can be rib doubt‘the plaintiff-might maintain an action, and. recover, a reasonable. compensation, for his services. This- suit, however, -is -pfemature, and cannot be supported,. The report- of the ,referees^ must, therefore, be set aside» • ■ • - ■ ■ ■ ■ . .
Motion-granted;,/