Rain v. Sturgeon's Admr.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Rain v. Sturgeon's Admr.

5 Ky. Op. 575, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 314

DecidedFebruary 22, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ky. Op. 575 (Rain v. Sturgeon's Admr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rain v. Sturgeon's Admr., 5 Ky. Op. 575, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 314 (Ky. Ct. App. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The paper on its face shows that Mrs. Sturgeon, who signed it, never intended it to have the force and character of a valid promisory note in her life time.

It was not delivered to be enforced against her, but against her estate after her death.

An individual can make a gift of goods, chattels and money to another by delivery, but his promises to make a. gift of any of these things cannot be enforced. But if there is a consideration for the promise, it is not a gift. Phelps vs. Phelps, 28 Barb. 121, 7. Johns; Repts. 25. Pearsons vs. Pearson. We then must inquire whether there is a sufficient consideration proved in this case to uphold the promise. It does not appear that there was any consideration for the promise except that appellant had named a daughter for Mrs. Sturgeon, but there was no relation between the parties, and no consideration of blood, therefore, existed to uphold the promise. It is then a mere promise to pay a sum of money as a mere gratuity or gift, and, although it is in writing, cannot be enforced. Mark v. Clark & Wife, 11 B. Monroe 44. Judgment must be affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The paper on its face shows that Mrs. Sturgeon, who signed it, never intended it to have the force and character of a valid promisory note in her life time.

It was not delivered to be enforced against her, but against her estate after her death.

An individual can make a gift of goods, chattels and money to another by delivery, but his promises to make a. gift of any of these things cannot be enforced. But if there is a consideration for the promise, it is not a gift. Phelps vs. Phelps, 28 Barb. 121, 7. Johns; Repts. 25. Pearsons vs. Pearson. We then must inquire whether there is a sufficient consideration proved in this case to uphold the promise. It does not appear that there was any consideration for the promise except that appellant had named a daughter for Mrs. Sturgeon, but there was no relation between the parties, and no consideration of blood, therefore, existed to uphold the promise. It is then a mere promise to pay a sum of money as a mere gratuity or gift, and, although it is in writing, cannot be enforced. Mark v. Clark & Wife, 11 B. Monroe 44. Judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ky. Op. 575, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rain-v-sturgeons-admr-kyctapp-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack