'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 service's. by a'provision- to b,e made'for' him, by his father,. (the, defendant,)’In-ins will; and, of.course, that hp claim for,-.compensation'was' to be made inf his father’s'lifetitpe. . 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 that'there' 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;,/