16.760 Contracts; Quantum Meruit; Circumstances between Near Relatives for Jury to Determine In order for a party to recover for services from a near relative such as are usually given because of a natural sense of duty and affection arising out of relation, it must affirmatively appear that such services were performed under an express contract, or the surrounding would be made. It is a question for the jury to determine what circumstances are sufficient to support the usual implication of a promise to pay for services or to repeal a counterinference that the performance was prompted by affection and that the services were rendered without expectation of payment. Edwards v. Smith, 42 Ga. App. 730 (1931) (Note: The theory of recovery involved in quantum meruit should be distinguished from actions for money or property that in equity and good conscience there is no right to retain against another with a legitimate interest therein.) Whitehead v. Peck, 1 Ga. 140 (1846) Carmichael Tile Company v. Bayley and Company, 42 Ga. App. 408 (1930) Fain v. Neal, 97 Ga. App. 497, 498 (1958) (Note: The charges on quantum meruit can be modified and used in quantum valebant situations for goods sold and delivered.)