Jetton v. Wilson's Administrator

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Jetton v. Wilson's Administrator

2 Del. Cas. 589, 1821 Del. LEXIS 7

DecidedApril 17, 1821

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Del. Cas. 589 (Jetton v. Wilson's Administrator) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jetton v. Wilson's Administrator, 2 Del. Cas. 589, 1821 Del. LEXIS 7 (Del. Ct. App. 1821).

Pincite

Opinion

[The Chancellor.]

This agreement, if it were proved in the most satisfactory manner, would be an agreement without consideration; and being, so the law affords no means of compelling a performance. Wilson derived no advantage from the forbearance of the plaintiff to insist on, or aid in, obtaining the probate, for the will was void; it was the will of an insane man, and was so adjudged. And if the plaintiff could not have obtained its probate, as she certainly could not, the testator not being of sound mind at the time of its execution, it is manifest that Wilson was not benefited by her forbearance to prosecute the probate, and consequently that no consideration arose for the promise.

Note. [Citations on the problem of consideration:] 2 Bro. C.C. 140, Robertson v. St. Johns; 7 Term 350 in note, Rank v. Hughes; 3 Atk. 539; Amb. 67; 1 Ves.Sr. 123; 4 Ves.Jr. 10; 3 Ves. Jr. 152; Amb. 330. See 2 P.Wms. 282, 266, 3 P.Wms. 279, 2 Ves. Jr. 238. . . .

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

[The Chancellor.]

This agreement, if it were proved in the most satisfactory manner, would be an agreement without consideration; and being, so the law affords no means of compelling a performance. Wilson derived no advantage from the forbearance of the plaintiff to insist on, or aid in, obtaining the probate, for the will was void; it was the will of an insane man, and was so adjudged. And if the plaintiff could not have obtained its probate, as she certainly could not, the testator not being of sound mind at the time of its execution, it is manifest that Wilson was not benefited by her forbearance to prosecute the probate, and consequently that no consideration arose for the promise.

Note. [Citations on the problem of consideration:] 2 Bro. C.C. 140, Robertson v. St. Johns; 7 Term 350 in note, Rank v. Hughes; 3 Atk. 539; Amb. 67; 1 Ves.Sr. 123; 4 Ves.Jr. 10; 3 Ves. Jr. 152; Amb. 330. See 2 P.Wms. 282, 266, 3 P.Wms. 279, 2 Ves. Jr. 238. . . .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Del. Cas. 589, 1821 Del. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jetton-v-wilsons-administrator-delch-1821.