Cottage Street Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kendall

• Citation: 121 Mass. 528
• Parties: Cottage Street Methodist Episcopal Church v. Edward Kendall, executor
• Decision Date: 03 January 1877
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

121 Mass. 528

Cottage Street Methodist Episcopal Church v. Edward Kendall, executor

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 3, 1877

Argued January 11, 1876

Middlesex. Contract to recover the amount of a subscription by Amos P. Rollins, the defendant's testator, towards the erection of a chapel for the plaintiff. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Pitman, J., who allowed the following bill of exceptions:

"It appeared that said church was organized in the manner shown by the records, and the trustees of the same chosen April 5 1871, and said Rollins was chosen the treasurer of said trustees, and said church was reorganized, on account of some flaw in the organization, in August, 1872, with the same board of trustees -- all of which appears in said records," but is not material to be particularly stated.

"In April, 1871, after said organization, an informal meeting of persons interested in building a chapel for said church was held at the house of said Rollins, of which certain persons acted as chairman and secretary. A subscription was thereupon opened to see how much could be raised for that purpose. Various persons announced their willingness to give different sums, and the secretary, at the time, in their presence and with their knowledge, wrote down their names, and the amounts so promised by each opposite thereto. Rollins was one of those so promising, and said that his name might be put down for $ 500. He afterwards within a short time acknowledged and ratified such subscription orally. Being treasurer of the trustees, he also received some payments from individuals on account of such subscriptions.

"Some months after this meeting, and long before August, 1872, some trouble arose between Rollins and the other members, and Rollins at their request withdrew from the office of treasurer, and there afterwards voluntarily ceased all participation in the affairs of the society, except that he remained one of its trustees until the end of the year for which he was chosen, and was present at the reorganization in August, 1872. No demand was made on him for payment. He died in March, 1873.

"The chapel was built before Rollins's death, by and for the use of the plaintiff. There was conflicting evidence as to whether anything was done, or any liability incurred or obligation assumed, by the plaintiff in reliance upon the subscription of Rollins.

"The defendant contended that nothing was done, nor any liability or obligation incurred or assumed, by the plaintiff in reliance upon the subscription of Rollins; that there was no consideration for the promise, and that the plaintiff was not the party to maintain this action; and asked the court so to rule.

"But the court, without passing upon the question of fact, whether the plaintiff, relying upon the subscription of Rollins, had done anything or incurred or assumed any liability or obligation, ruled that upon the facts above stated there was a sufficient consideration for the promise of Rollins, and that the plaintiff was the proper party to bring the action and accordingly found for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts to these rulings."

Exceptions sustained.

J. W. Hammond, for the defendant.

D. F. Crane, for the plaintiff.

Gray C. J. Colt & Endicott, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Gray C. J.

The performance of gratuitous promises depends wholly upon the good will which prompted them, and will not be enforced by the law. The general rule is that, in order to support an action, the promise must have been made upon a legal consideration moving from the promisee to the promisor. Exchange Bank v. Rice, 107 Mass. 37. To constitute such consideration, there must be either a benefit to the maker of the promise, or a loss, trouble or inconvenience to, or a charge or obligation resting upon, the party to whom the promise is made.

A promise to pay money to promote the objects for which a corporation is established falls within the general rule. In every case, in which this court has sustained an action upon a promise of this description, the promisee's acceptance of the defendant's promise was shown,...