Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Sample Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    no1ustad
    The plaintiff sued the estate of Charles Lehman to collect on a $10,000 promissory note. Lehman had asked the plaintiff to name their son after him and care for him during brief illnesses in exchange for providing for the son's education. The trial court ruled for the defendant estate. The Supreme Court of Indiana reversed, finding that naming the son and care provided were adequate consideration to enforce Lehman's promise in the note.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sample Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    no1ustad
    2K views1 page
    The plaintiff sued the estate of Charles Lehman to collect on a $10,000 promissory note. Lehman had asked the plaintiff to name their son after him and care for him during brief illnesses in exchange for providing for the son's education. The trial court ruled for the defendant estate. The Supreme Court of Indiana reversed, finding that naming the son and care provided were adequate consideration to enforce Lehman's promise in the note.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff sued the estate of Charles Lehman to collect on a $10,000 promissory note. Lehman had asked the plaintiff to name their son after him and care for him during brief illnesses in exchange for providing for the son's education. The trial court ruled for the defendant estate. The Supreme Court of Indiana reversed, finding that naming the son and care provided were adequate consideration to enforce Lehman's promise in the note.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    Sample Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    no1ustad
    The plaintiff sued the estate of Charles Lehman to collect on a $10,000 promissory note. Lehman had asked the plaintiff to name their son after him and care for him during brief illnesses in exchange for providing for the son's education. The trial court ruled for the defendant estate. The Supreme Court of Indiana reversed, finding that naming the son and care provided were adequate consideration to enforce Lehman's promise in the note.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Wolford v.

    Powers
    Supreme Court of Indiana
    85 Ind. 294 (1882)
    Page 141

    Judge(s) •
    Procedural • Trial court—rendered judgment for the defendant.
    Posture • Indiana Supreme Court—reversed, holding that the
    naming of the child and the various services rendered to
    Lehman by the plaintiff’s family were consideration for
    Lehman’s promise.
    Facts • Plaintiff brought suit against the estate of Charles
    Lehman to obtain judgment on a promissory note for
    $10,000.
    • Lehman, a widower whose son had died some years
    before, asked as a friend of the plaintiff that they name
    their son for him in exchange for which he would “provide
    for it generously and give it a good education.”
    • Lehman also requested that plaintiff care for him during
    some brief illnesses and hire a carriage to take him out
    driving, which plaintiff did.
    • When the baby was five months old, Lehman executed a
    note to the plaintiff for $10,000 stating that he preferred
    to carry out his promise this way instead of in his will or as
    a present conveyance of his property.
    Issue(s) • Was there adequate consideration to enforce the promise?
    Holding • Yes.
    Reasoning • Where there is no fraud, and a party gets all the
    consideration he contracts for, the contract will be upheld.
    • The value of all things contracted for is measured by the
    appetite of the contractors, and therefore the just value is
    that which they be contended to give.
    • If there be any consideration at all, it must be allotted the
    value the parties have placed upon it, or a conjuectural
    estimate, made arbitrarily and without semblance of a
    guide, must be substituted by the courts.
    Dissent • NA
    Concurrence • NA
    Rule • Where there is no fraud, and a party gets all the
    consideration he contracts for, the contract will be upheld.

    You might also like