Case brief summary
A promise only becomes an enforceable contract if the person receiving it gives something in return. A promise that's just a free gift, with nothing given back, can't be enforced in court.
Facts
A widow received a letter from her brother-in-law offering her a home and farmland if she moved to his place. She gave up her land and moved sixty miles, but he later forced her out.
Procedural history
A jury awarded the widow $200. Both sides agreed on the facts and asked the higher court to decide if those facts legally supported her win.
Issue
Did the brother-in-law's letter offering a place to live create a binding contract, meaning did the widow give up something of value in exchange for his promise, or was his offer just a free gift that he could take back?
Holding
The court reversed the judgment in favor of the widow, ruling that the brother-in-law's promise was a mere gratuity, meaning a free gift, and not a contract that could be legally enforced.
Reasoning
The judge writing the opinion thought the widow's sacrifice of moving sixty miles counted as something given in return. But most judges disagreed, ruling the offer was just a generous gift, not a contract.
Opinions
Majority (Ormond): The promise to give the widow land and a home was a mere gratuity, a free gift, not a contract that courts can enforce.