Earle v. Angell

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Earle v. Angell

32 N.E. 164, 157 Mass. 294, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 60

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 21, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 32 N.E. 164 (Earle v. Angell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Earle v. Angell, 32 N.E. 164, 157 Mass. 294, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 60 (Mass. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Holmes, J.

There is no difficulty in point of law in the way of a paroi contract to pay a person $500, conditioned upon his attending the promisor’s funeral, and in consideration of his promise to do so. It is well settled that a contract to pay money after one’s own death is valid. Parker v. Coburn, 10 Allen, 82, 83. Phillips v. Blatchford, 137 Mass. 510, 514. Krell v. Codman, 154 Mass. 454. And the other elements of the case are examples of very well known principles. The ruling that the plaintiff could not recover must have gone on the ground that there was no evidence of such a contract as we have supposed. According to the report, the plaintiff testified that the defendant’s testatrix said, “ If you will agree to come, ... I will give you five hundred dollars,” etc., and that he promised to come if alive and notified in time. We cannot say that this did not warrant a finding of promise for promise. It is suggested that the acceptance varied from the terms of the offer. But the parties were face to face, and separated seemingly agreed. The jury well might have found, if that was the only question, that the variation, if any, was assented to on the spot.

Exceptions sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Holmes, J.

There is no difficulty in point of law in the way of a paroi contract to pay a person $500, conditioned upon his attending the promisor’s funeral, and in consideration of his promise to do so. It is well settled that a contract to pay money after one’s own death is valid. Parker v. Coburn, 10 Allen, 82, 83. Phillips v. Blatchford, 137 Mass. 510, 514. Krell v. Codman, 154 Mass. 454. And the other elements of the case are examples of very well known principles. The ruling that the plaintiff could not recover must have gone on the ground that there was no evidence of such a contract as we have supposed. According to the report, the plaintiff testified that the defendant’s testatrix said, “ If you will agree to come, ... I will give you five hundred dollars,” etc., and that he promised to come if alive and notified in time. We cannot say that this did not warrant a finding of promise for promise. It is suggested that the acceptance varied from the terms of the offer. But the parties were face to face, and separated seemingly agreed. The jury well might have found, if that was the only question, that the variation, if any, was assented to on the spot.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.E. 164, 157 Mass. 294, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earle-v-angell-mass-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack