Freeman v. Morris

• Decision Date: 04 December 1906
• Citation: 131 Wis. 216,109 N.W. 983
• Parties: FREEMAN v. MORRIS ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

131 Wis. 216

109 N.W. 983

FREEMAN

v.MORRIS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 4, 1906.

Appeal from Circuit Court, La Crosse County; J. J. Fruit, Judge.

Action by Martha A. Freeman against Thomas Morris and another, as executors of the will of Reinard R. La Fleur, deceased. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiff's mother, Catherine La Fleur Freeman, is a neice of Reinard R. La Fleur. These parties resided in La Crosse county for many years prior to Reinard R. La Fleur's death. A few days after plaintiff's birth, Reinard R. La Fleur came to the home of her parents and requested that he be given the privilege of naming her, and asked them to bestow on her the name of his deceased wife, Martha. She had died in Holland prior to his removal to this country. It was thereupon agreed by plaintiff's parents and Reinard R. La Fleur that he should have the right and privilege of bestowing upon plaintiff the name of Martha, and in consideration thereof Reinard R. La Fleur promised and agreed to give, leave, devise, or bequeath something to her; that is, some property. Pursuant to such agreement plaintiff, with the consent of her parents, was named Martha by him, and she has ever since borne and retained, and is known by, the Christian name of Martha. At the time this agreement was made and the name so given to plaintiff by Reinard R. La Fleur with the assent of her parents, no specific property nor any specified amount was designated or agreed upon by the parties. At various times after the name was so adopted and given to the plaintiff by the parties, Reinard R. La Fleur stated to third parties that he was going to give and devise to plaintiff the sum of $500 for the privilege of having so named her, and he inserted a provision in three wills, made by him after so naming plaintiff, whereby he bequeathed to her $500. He revoked all these wills, and his last will contained no bequest to plaintiff, but wholly omitted to mention her. He died on or about October 4, 1903, without having paid or given plaintiff anything for the privilege of naming her Martha, under the agreement with her parents. He left an estate sufficient to pay the sum of $500, now demanded by plaintiff as due her under the agreement under which he exercised the right and privilege of naming her. The circuit court awarded judgment in plaintiff's favor and against the defendants, as executors of the will of Reinard R. La Fleur, deceased, for the sum of $500 and costs, upon the ground that such amount was due the plaintiff under the agreement to name her Martha, so made by the deceased and her parents. This is an appeal from such judgment.Morris & Hartwell, for appellants.

Wm. S. Burroughs, for respondent.

SIEBECKER, J. (after stating the facts).

It is not seriously contested but that the privilege of naming plaintiff, given the testator by her parents, was a valuable one in the eye of the law, and that it has been treated as a sufficient consideration to support a contract in respect to it. This subject was considered, and such privilege held a valid consideration for a contract based on it, in the following decisions: Babcock v. Chase (Sup.) 36 N. Y. Supp. 879;Parks v. Francis' Administrator, 50 Vt. 627, 28 Am. Rep. 517;Wolford v. Powers, 85 Ind. 294, 44 Am. Rep. 16;Eaton v. Libby, 165 Mass. 218, 42 N. E. 1127, 52 Am. St. Rep. 511;Daily v. Minnick, 117 Iowa, 563, 91 N. W. 913, 60 L. R. A. 840. These and other authorities cited therein also support the proposition that, though the privilege of naming a child may be one...