Edson v. Poppe
124 N.W. 441, 1910 S.D. LEXIS 7, 24 S.D. 466 (1910)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A subsequent express promise to pay for beneficial services, previously rendered without the promisor's request, is supported by sufficient consideration and is enforceable if the services were not intended to be gratuitous.
Facts:
- Fred Poppe owned a parcel of land in Turner County, South Dakota.
- A tenant, George Poppe, was in possession of Fred Poppe's land.
- In 1904, at the tenant's request, L. T. Edson drilled a 250-foot well on Fred Poppe's property.
- The well was a valuable improvement that greatly increased the value of the land.
- On August 5, 1905, after examining the well, Fred Poppe expressly promised Edson that he would pay for the reasonable value of the drilling and casing.
- Fred Poppe later refused to pay Edson for the well.
Procedural Posture:
- L. T. Edson sued Fred Poppe in the circuit court (trial court) to recover payment for the well.
- At the start of the trial, Poppe objected to the introduction of any evidence, arguing that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because his promise was based on unenforceable past consideration.
- The trial court overruled Poppe's objection.
- A jury found in favor of Edson, and the trial court entered a judgment against Poppe.
- Poppe, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of South Dakota, with Edson as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner's subsequent promise to pay for a well, which was drilled at the request of his tenant without his prior knowledge but provided a material benefit to his property, constitute an enforceable contract supported by sufficient consideration?
Opinions:
Majority - McCoy, J.
Yes, the landowner's subsequent promise to pay for the well constitutes an enforceable contract. While the general rule is that past services are insufficient consideration for a subsequent promise, there is an exception based on moral obligation. A promise is supported by sufficient consideration if the services, though rendered without a prior request, were beneficial to the promisor and were not intended to be gratuitous. Here, the well was a direct and valuable benefit to Poppe's property. Poppe's subsequent express promise to pay is viewed as equivalent to a previous request, making the contract enforceable. The court relies on precedent holding that a promise founded on value previously received from the promisee is binding, thereby preventing the promisor from being unjustly enriched by the beneficial service.
Analysis:
This case establishes an important exception to the traditional contract rule that past consideration is not valid consideration. It adopts the 'material benefit rule,' holding that a moral obligation arising from a significant, unrequested past benefit can serve as valid consideration for a subsequent promise to pay for that benefit. This decision prevents unjust enrichment by allowing enforcement of promises made in recognition of value already received. The ruling influences modern contract law by recognizing that fairness and the prevention of unjust outcomes can justify enforcing promises that would otherwise fail for lack of a traditional bargained-for exchange.
