Rain v. Sturgeon's Admr.

5 Ky. Op. 575, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 314
Court of Appeals of Kentucky·Decided February 22, 1872·Published

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

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

5 Ky. Op. 575 (Rain v. Sturgeon's Admr.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Phelps v. Phelps
28 Barb. 121 (New York Supreme Court, 1858)