Glenn v. Savage
1887 Ore. LEXIS 40, 13 P. 442, 14 Or. 567 (1887)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person cannot recover payment for services rendered for the benefit of another without the other person's request or subsequent promise to pay, as such acts are deemed voluntary acts of courtesy for which no action can be sustained.
Facts:
- A large quantity of building material owned by O.S. Savage accidentally fell into the Columbia River.
- At the time, Savage was absent and unaware that his property was at risk of being carried away by the river's current.
- Hugh Glenn, seeing the situation, intervened to save the lumber from being lost.
- Without any request from Savage, Glenn furnished help and performed labor to retrieve the lumber from the river.
- Glenn later sought payment from Savage for the reasonable value of the services he provided in saving the lumber.
Procedural Posture:
- Hugh Glenn filed a complaint against O. S. Savage in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Wasco County, the trial court.
- The complaint alleged four separate causes of action, including claims for the value of services rendered in saving Savage's lumber and for damages from a separate contract breach.
- Savage filed an answer denying the allegations and raising the affirmative defense of former adjudication (res judicata) for several of the claims.
- During the trial, the court excluded the judgment roll from the prior case that Savage offered as evidence for his res judicata defense.
- The trial resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Glenn, for $450.
- The defendant, Savage, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
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 person who voluntarily performs a service to save another's property from loss, without the owner's request or subsequent promise to pay, have a legal right to compensation for that service?
Opinions:
Majority - Strahan, J.
No. A person who voluntarily performs a service for another's benefit without a request does not have a legal claim for compensation. To create a legal liability, the defendant must have either requested the service before it was performed or, after learning of it, promised to pay for it. The court explained that the 'great and leading rule of law is, to deem an act done for the benefit of another without his request as a voluntary act of courtesy, for which no action can be sustained.' Permitting recovery in such situations would lead to 'ruinous litigation' and would improperly convert acts of kindness into pecuniary demands. Citing Bartholomew v. Jackson, the court analogized the situation to a person who voluntarily helps save a neighbor's house from a fire, stating that the law considers such a service gratuitous. Therefore, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Glenn could recover for the reasonable value of his services in saving Savage's lumber. The court also found the trial court erred by excluding evidence of a prior judgment (res judicata) and by giving an improper jury instruction regarding an agent's authority on a separate claim.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision illustrating the common law doctrine of the 'officious intermeddler' or 'volunteer.' The ruling solidifies the principle that one cannot impose a legal obligation on another by conferring an unsolicited benefit. It distinguishes a moral obligation to be grateful from a legally enforceable duty to pay, thereby protecting individual autonomy and preventing people from being made debtors against their will. This precedent is crucial in contract and restitution law, setting a high bar for recovery in the absence of a request or promise, which are key indicators of mutual assent.
