20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 207 (1825)
The plaintiff provided care and shelter to the son of the defendant after the son fell ill upon returning from a foreign country.1 The son was twenty-five years old and had long left his father’s family.2 He fell sick among strangers, and the plaintiff gave him shelter and comfort until he died.3 The kindness and services were not bestowed at the defendant’s request, and the son was in no respect under the care of the defendant.4
After being informed of this event, the defendant, influenced by a transient feeling of gratitude, promised in writing to pay the plaintiff for the expenses he had incurred but later determined to break this promise.5 The promise was made without any legal consideration.6 The defendant later determined to break this promise and is willing to have his case appear on record as a strong example of particular injustice sometimes necessarily resulting from the operation of general rules.7
The dispute came before the Court of Common Pleas.8 That court directed a nonsuit in favor of the defendant.9 The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts then considered whether judgment should be entered on the nonsuit.10
Whether the defendant's written promise to pay the plaintiff for expenses incurred caring for his adult son is enforceable?11
The rule that a mere verbal promise, without any consideration, cannot be enforced by action, is universal in its application, and cannot be departed from to suit particular cases in which a refusal to perform such a promise may be disgraceful.12 A moral obligation is a sufficient consideration to support an express promise only if there has been some preexisting obligation which has become inoperative by positive law, to form a basis for an effective promise.13
No. The promise was made without any legal consideration because the services were not requested by the defendant and concerned an adult son who was independent.14 There was no preexisting obligation that had become inoperative by positive law, as would be the case with debts barred by the statute of limitations or those of infants or bankrupts.15 The moral obligation from gratitude does not suffice to support the promise.16
The defendant's written promise is not enforceable.17
Whether the statute requiring lineal kindred to support poor relations creates an enforceable legal obligation on the defendant absent prior adjudication?18
The statute compels lineal kindred in the ascending or descending line to support such of their poor relations as are likely to become chargeable to the town where they have their settlement.19 Such legal obligation does not exist except in the very cases provided for in the statute. It never arises until the party charged has been adjudged to be of sufficient ability thereto.20 The legal liability does not arise until these facts have all been ascertained by judgment, after hearing the party intended to be charged.21
No. We do not know from the report any of the facts which are necessary to create such an obligation.22 Whether the deceased had a legal settlement in this commonwealth at the time of his death, whether he was likely to become chargeable had he lived, whether the defendant was of sufficient ability, are essential facts to be adjudicated by the court to which is given jurisdiction on this subject.23
The statute does not create an enforceable legal obligation on the defendant absent prior adjudication.24