Ackerson v. Fly
Opinion
Plaintiff asked for the specific performance of a contract, which she on her part has never performed and which it is impossible for her to perform. The consideration moving Peter Aekerson* [120]*120to enter into the contract with plaintiff was that plaintiff should become a member of his family, that he could have the pleasure and comfort of her society as such and that she should keep house for him. She never became a member of his family, he did not have the enjoyment of her society, she never kept house for him a day or an hour.
To authorize a court of equity to specifically enforce an oral promise to make a devise to a particular person, the promise must be founded on a valuable consideration and it should appear that a fraud would be perpetrated on the promisee unless the contract was specifically enforced. Kinney v. Murray, 71 S. W. (Mo.) 197.
The plaintiff performed a few hours, or, at most, .a few days labor for her grandfather. She received from him a cow and a buggy, property greatly exceeding in value the value of the services she rendered him.
There is no inherent equity in the case and the judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
72 S.W. 706 (Ackerson v. Fly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.