Seavey v. Drake
62 N.H. 393 (1882)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parol promise to convey land is enforceable in equity, notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds, if the promisee is induced by the promise to take possession of the land and make valuable, permanent improvements.
Facts:
- The defendants' testator (the deceased) made a parol promise to give the plaintiff a parcel of land.
- In reliance on this promise, the plaintiff took possession of the land.
- The plaintiff, induced by the promise to give the land, expended significant money and labor making valuable and permanent improvements upon the property.
- The testator subsequently died without delivering a formal deed for the land to the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a bill in equity in a trial court against the estate of the defendants' testator, seeking specific performance of a promise to convey land.
- During the proceedings, the plaintiff offered to prove the existence of the oral promise and his subsequent actions in reliance on it (taking possession and making improvements).
- The trial court, presumably on the grounds that the promise violated the Statute of Frauds, excluded the evidence or otherwise found the promise unenforceable.
- The case was then transferred to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire to decide whether the plaintiff's evidence of part performance was admissible to enforce the parol promise.
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 party's partial performance, in the form of taking possession and making valuable improvements on land in reliance on a parol promise to convey the land, remove the promise from the requirements of the Statute of Frauds?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
Yes. A parol promise to convey land is enforceable when the promisee has partially performed in reliance on the promise. The court held that equity protects a parol gift of land equally with a parol agreement to sell land. When a donor's promise induces the donee to take possession and make valuable improvements, the expenditure of money or labor constitutes consideration for the promise in equity. To allow the donor or their estate to then rely on the Statute of Frauds to revoke the promise would operate as a fraud upon the donee. Therefore, the evidence of the parol promise and the subsequent improvements is admissible to compel specific performance.
Analysis:
This case is significant for extending the equitable exception of part performance to purely gratuitous promises to convey land, not just contracts for sale. It solidifies the principle that detrimental reliance can make a promise enforceable, a foundational concept for the modern doctrine of promissory estoppel. By finding that the donee's expenditures in improving the land constitute consideration in equity, the court blurs the traditional line between a gift and a contract. This precedent allows courts to prevent injustice by enforcing oral promises for land when the promisee has substantially changed their position in reliance on the promise.
Unlock the full brief for Seavey v. Drake