For Your Data Andrew Ricketts V. Katie Scothorn Representative Brief Summary

Andrew Ricketts v. Katie Scothorn
 57 Neb. 51, 77 N.W. 365 illustrates reliance

(Supreme Court of Nebraska)(1898)

Procedural Posture: Plaintiff, Katie Scothorn, recovered judgment against accused Andrew D. Ricketts. Defendant Ricketts appealed the ruling of the District Court of Lancaster County.

Overview: Defendant, Andrew D. Ricketts is the executor of the concluding volition in addition to will of John C. Ricketts. John C. Ricketts is the gramps of plaintiff Katie Scothorn. The activity was brought based on a promissory Federal Reserve notation written yesteryear John Ricketts. John Ricketts told plaintiff that he promised to pay her 2,000 on demand alongside 6% interest. The promissory Federal Reserve notation was dated May 1, 1891.

Plaintiff alleges that inwards consideration of the note, she quit her labor equally a bookkeeper (accountant) for Mayer Bros. in addition to ceased to move for a living. She alleged that the Federal Reserve notation was given to get her to abandon her occupation in addition to yesteryear relying on it equally a hateful of support.

The fabric facts are undisputed. The allegations of the petition are denied yesteryear Andrew D. Ricketts (defendant).

Issue: Whether at that topographic point is reliance yesteryear the plaintiff upon the hope made yesteryear Mr. Ricketts since it was a gift in addition to at that topographic point was no consideration inwards giving the gift.

Rule: Even when an understanding lacks consideration, a hope may nevertheless accept a correct to enforce the understanding given surely limitations.

Facts:

Grandfather died on June 8, 1894-he had paid involvement on the loan in addition to had expressed regret on non beingness able to pay the balance of the note.

Mr. John Ricketts expressed to his granddaughter that he was intended to pay off the debt in ane lawsuit he sold his terra firma inwards Ohio.

Mr. John Ricketts supported Stockhorn inwards going dorsum to move in ane lawsuit he brutal on difficult times in addition to was non able to pay on the regulation on the Federal Reserve notation in addition to Mr. Ricketts helped her teach a job.

Reasoning: The plaintiff quit her labor when she institute out her gramps gave her a gift that did non look to hold upwards a contract. There was no consideration yesteryear the plaintiff inwards regards to quitting her job. She didn’t demand to quit inwards gild to hold upwards entitled to the money. However, the gramps did propose it. Because the plaintiff altered her plans based on the organized faith of the note, the courtroom institute that it would hold upwards inequitable non to accept the executor of the grandfather's volition to pay the debt to the granddaughter.

This is based on estoppel- the courtroom stopped the estate from maxim at that topographic point was no obligation.

Result: Supreme Court affirmed.

Support us by:

Visiting: http://www.fbdetox.com to rid yourself of that social media addition.

Checking out our shop on Etsy: http://www.bohobuttons.com

Share this post