Story Case

Edward Latham lost all his wealth in a speculation and was forced to accept the charity of his friends.

A certain Dr. Hargis promised Latham that he would be responsible for his living expenses, until he could become located again. For three months, Latham lived with Hargis and was made very comfortable. Then Latham came into a large fortune upon the decease of his rich uncle.

Latham said to Hargis, "Doctor, I am indebted to you for your kindnesses to me and I shall repay you $150 for the expense you have incurred. Your promise to take care of me has been generously kept. For this promise, I promise to repay you. I'll send you the check within the week".

But several weeks passed, and no check was received by Hargis. Then he mentioned the fact to Latham who said,"I have decided not to pay you. I have consulted my attorneys and they inform me that my promise to repay you was not supported by any consideration given by you".

Hargis sued for the $150, alleging, as a consideration, the. promise which he had made to Latham to keep him while he was without money. Should the court allow him to recover?

Ruling Court Case. Josephine Moore Vs. Nelson Elmer, Volume 180 Massachusetts Reports, Page 15

Williard Elmer held a mortgage upon certain property which was owned by Josephine Moore, the plaintiff in this action. Josephine Moore pretended to be a prophet and a clairvoyant. "Williard Elmer, during his lifetime, had been to see her several times, and had had her make a so-called reading of his future. He executed a writing to her on one occasion, by which he promised to give her the mortgage which he held upon her land, in consideration of the sittings which he had had. After the death of Williard Elmer, Nelson Elmer was made his personal representative. In clearing up the estate of Williard, Nelson was proceeding to foreclose this mortgage against Josephine Moore. She resisted the foreclosure on the ground that Williard had agreed to release the mortgage to her. She brought this bill to restrain the personal representative, Nelson Elmer, from making preparations towards a foreclosure.

Nelson insisted, that the written agreement executed by Williard during his lifetime, was not binding, because it was not supported by a consideration. The sittings, which had been given him, had been given before any promise was made to pay her therefor. Such a consideration is past, and cannot support a present promise.

Decision

A promise to pay for services already rendered is without consideration and is not legally en-forcible. Such a consideration is said to be a past or executed consideration. In this case, the services which Josephine Moore seeks to establish as a consideration for the promise of Williard Elmer to release the mortgage, were performed before the promise was made. When the services were rendered there was no promise made to pay for them. A subsequent promise to pay for them is not binding, for the reason that it is without a consideration.

Accordingly, judgment was given for Nelson Elmer in this suit, and he was not restrained from proceeding to foreclose the mortgage.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

When a person performs some service or act for another, without the knowledge of the latter, usually this imposes no legal liability upon the former to pay for the services. Nor will such past services rendered without request or implied request, operate as a sufficient consideration to make binding a present promise to pay for them. When it is reasonable to conclude that the services were rendered as a charity, a request to pay cannot be implied. Any subsequent promise to pay is without consideration, and not binding. Thus, in the Story Case, the services which Dr. Hargis performed for Latham do not constitute a sufficient consideration to support the promise subsequently made by Latham to pay for them.