Ricketts v. Scothorn

• Decision Date: 08 December 1898
• Citation: 77 N.W. 365,57 Neb. 51
• Parties: RICKETTS v. SCOTHORN.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

57 Neb. 51

77 N.W. 365

RICKETTS

v.SCOTHORN.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Dec. 8, 1898.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A nonnegotiable note given to the payee thereof as a gratuity, being nothing more than a promise by the payor to make a gift in the future of the sum of money therein mentioned, is without consideration, and cannot, except under special circumstances, be enforced by action.

2. A promissory note given by the maker to the payee to enable the latter to cease work, but without any condition being imposed, or promise exacted, is without consideration, and may be repudiated, in the absence of circumstances creating an equitable estoppel.

3. But where the payee of such an obligation has been induced to abandon a lucrative occupation in reliance on the note being paid, and has taken such action in accordance with the expectation of the maker, neither the latter nor his legal representatives will be permitted to resist payment on the ground that there was no consideration for the promise.

4. The note in suit was executed to the plaintiff by a relative to enable her to live without working, whereupon she abandoned the occupation in which she was engaged, and remained idle for more than a year. This action on her part was contemplated by the relative as the probable consequence of the execution of the note. Held, that want of consideration could not be alleged as defense.

Error to district court, Lancaster county; Holmes, Judge.

Action by Katie Scothorn against Andrew D. Ricketts, executor of the will of J. C. Ricketts, deceased. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.Ricketts & Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

Lamb & Adams, for defendant in error.

SULLIVAN, J.

In the district court of Lancaster county the plaintiff, Katie Scothorn, recovered judgment against the defendant, Andrew D. Ricketts, as executor of the last will and testament of John C. Ricketts, deceased. The action was based upon a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “May the first, 1891. I promise to pay to Katie Scothorn on demand, $2,000, to be at 6 per cent. per annum. J. C. Ricketts.” In the petition the plaintiff alleges that the consideration for the execution of the note was that she should surrender her employment as bookkeeper for Mayer Bros., and cease to work for a living. She also alleges that the note was given to induce her to abandon her occupation, and that, relying on it, and on the annual interest, as a means of support, she gave up the employment in which she was then engaged. These allegations of the petition are denied by the administrator. The material facts are undisputed. They are as follows: John C. Ricketts, the maker of the note, was the grandfather of the plaintiff. Early in May--presumably on the day the note bears date--he called on her at the store where she was working. What transpired between them is thus described by Mr. Flodene, one of the plaintiff's witnesses: “A. Well, the old gentleman came in there one morning about nine o'clock, probably a little before or a little after, but early in the morning, and he unbuttoned his vest, and took out a piece of paper in the shape of a note; that is the way it looked to me; and he says to Miss Scothorn, ‘I have fixed out something that you have not got to work any more.’ He says, none of my grandchildren work, and you don't have to. Q. Where was she? A. She took the piece of paper and kissed him, and kissed the old gentleman, and commenced to cry.” It seems Miss Scothorn immediately notified her employer of her intention to quit work, and that she did soon after abandon her occupation. The mother of the plaintiff was a witness, and testified that she had a conversation with her father, Mr. Ricketts, shortly after the note was executed, in which he informed her that he had given the note to the plaintiff to enable her to quit work; that none of his grandchildren worked, and he did not think she ought to. For something more than a year the plaintiff was without an occupation, but in September, 1892, with the consent of her grandfather, and by his assistance, she secured a position as bookkeeper with Messrs. Funke & Ogden. On June 8, 1894, Mr. Ricketts died. He had paid one year's interest on the note, and a short time before his death expressed regret that he had not been able to pay the balance. In the summer or fall of 1892 he stated to his daughter, Mrs. Scothorn, that if he could sell his farm in Ohio he would pay the note out of the proceeds. He at no time repudiated the obligation. We quite agree with counsel for the defendant that upon this evidence there was nothing to submit to the jury, and that a verdict should have been directed peremptorily for one of the parties. The testimony of Flodene and Mrs. Scothorn, taken together, conclusively establishes the fact that the note was not given in consideration of the plaintiff pursuing, or agreeing to pursue, any particular line of conduct. There was no promise on the part of the plaintiff to do, or refrain from doing, anything. Her right to the money promised in the note was not made to depend upon an abandonment of her employment with Mayer Bros., and future abstention from like service. Mr. Ricketts made no condition, requirement, or request. He exacted no quid pro quo. He gave the note as a gratuity, and looked for nothing in return. So far as the evidence discloses, it was his purpose to place the plaintiff in a position of independence, where she could work or remain...