Mills
v. Wyman
Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1825.
20
Facts: The defendant’s son got
very sick and was taken in by the plaintiff.
The son was in the care of the plaintiff for 15 days until he died, and
when the defendant learned of this he promised to repay the plaintiff for his
help. The plaintiff sued to recover the
promised money, but was nonsuited. The plaintiff
appealed.
Issue: Did the father’s moral
obligation serve as adequate consideration for his promise of payment in order
to constitute an enforceable promise?
Rule: A moral obligation may only
form consideration for an express promise in three cases: (1) debts barred by
the statute of limitations, (2) debts incurred by kids, or (3) debts previously
discharged by bankruptcy.
Analysis: The moral obligation of the
defendant is not found to be of the kind that can form consideration for an
express promise. Therefore, the defendant’s
promise to pay the plaintiff was nothing more than a gift promise in the eyes
of the law. In the court’s view, society
has chosen to leave it up to the defendant’s conscience whether to pay back a
purely moral debt.
Conclusion: The trial court’s decision
was upheld and the promise was found not to be enforceable.
Question
This
would seem nearly analogous to the case where a doctor treats an unconscious
person who dies without regaining consciousness. The difference would be that we don’t know
whether or not the defendant’s son could have expressed an intention or lack of
intention to repay the plaintiff. I
think Mills has a better shot at Levi Wyman’s estate than at the father, who
basically had nothing to do with the situation except the letter he sent after
his son’s death.