Johnson's Adm'r v. Hunt
| Citation | 81 Ky. 321,5 Ky.L.Rptr. 194 |
| Parties | Johnson's adm'r v. Hunt. |
| Decision Date | 20 September 1883 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
1. A plea of accord and satisfaction founded upon services should aver that the services were accepted in satisfaction of the plaintiff's demand. Without such averment of acceptance, the plea is bad.
2. A contract made by an aged man with his grandson, that if the latter will aid the grandfather in inducing a young lady to marry him, write letters to her, and use his influence with the lady to marry the grandfather, the latter will deliver to the grandson a note he holds against him for $5,000 is against the policy of the law, and is void.
3. The interference by one upon an agreement that he is to receive a reward or other consideration if he bring about a marriage is simply void.
APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT.
WRIGHT & MCELROY, RHODES & SETTLE, WILKINS & SIMS, AND E. W. HINES FOR APPELLANT.
1. Neither the original nor amended answer avers that the services performed by appellee were accepted by the decedent in satisfaction of the note held against appellee by the decedent for $5,000.
2. But the contract relied upon by the appellee, that he was to give his aid and influence in inducing a young lady to marry his grandfather, and that, in consideration thereof, the latter was to surrender to appellee his note for $5,000, is vicious and cannot be sustained. Such contracts are against the policy of the law, and are void. (Chitty on Cont., sec. 1123; 38 Penn., 149; 42 Iowa 555; 57 Ga. 448; 33 Ark. 307; 32 Ib., 244; Minor's Inst., vol. 4, 136; 2 Parson's on Cont., 74; 2 Duv., 247; 1 Ib., 278.)
PORTER & PORTER AND NAT. PORTER FOR APPELLEE.
1. The contract set forth in the answer and amended answer is not a " marriage brokage" contract, and has on it no vicious elements.
2. Appellee agreed to write letters for his grandfather and bear messages for him dictated by the former. It does not matter that the letters and messages bear upon and relate to the subject of a matrimonial alliance, they were the production of the decedent. (Chitty on Cont., 581; Parsons on Contr vol. 2, 74; Farmer v. Gregory, 78 Ky. 476; Merriwether v. Morrison, Ib., 575; O'Reagan v. O'Sullivan, 14 Bush, 184; Hubble v. Murphy, 1 Duv., 279; Murphy v. Hubble, 2 Ib., 252.)
The appellee, George W. Hunt, on the 1st of January in the year 1877, borrowed of his grandfather, Thomas Johnson, the sum of five thousand dollars, for which he executed his note payable in three years, with eight per cent. interest from the time of its execution.
The grandfather died, and his personal representatives instituted an action at law upon the note, to which the appellee pleaded, in substance, that decedent being a widower, and desirous of again marrying, had offered a relative the sum of ten thousand dollars to aid him in procuring him a wife, and his relatives (except the appellee) opposing a second marriage, the grandfather, in consideration that the appellee would assist him in procuring a wife, agreed that he would as compensation therefor, release and give up to the appellee the note in controversy. The name of the young lady having been suggested, the appellee alleges that he wrote letters to her for his grandfather, and did all in his power to accomplish the purpose in view; that he had not only complied with his contract, but used his influence with others to marry his aged relative. He therefore asks that the note be delivered up, & c. To this answer a demurrer was filed and sustained, and thereupon the appellee filed an amended answer, in which he alleges that his grandfather was seventy-seven years of age, feeble, and unable to ride on horseback, and that, in consideration that he, the appellee, would write letters to the young lady for him, and see that they were delivered, & c., that he would give him the note for five thousand dollars; that he fully complied with the agreement by writing the letters and delivering them to the young lady, and therefore the note was fully discharged. The demurrer to the answer, as amended, was overruled, and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial