Lexplug logoLexplug

Webb v. McGowin

Alabama Court of Appeals
168 So. 196, 27 Ala. App. 82 (1935)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A moral obligation is sufficient consideration to support a subsequent promise to pay where the promisor has received a material benefit, even if the promisor had no original duty or liability.


Facts:

  • On August 3, 1925, Joe Webb was employed by the W. T. Smith Lumber Company and was clearing the upper floor of a mill.
  • Webb was in the process of dropping a 75-pound pine block to the ground from the upper floor.
  • As he began to drop the block, Webb saw J. Greeley McGowin standing directly in the block's path below.
  • To prevent the block from striking and killing or seriously injuring McGowin, Webb held onto the block and fell with it, successfully diverting its course.
  • McGowin was uninjured, but Webb sustained severe and permanent injuries, including broken limbs and a torn heel, which left him crippled for life.
  • On September 1, 1925, in gratitude for saving his life and in consideration of Webb's injuries, McGowin promised to pay Webb $15 every two weeks for the rest of Webb's life.
  • McGowin made these payments regularly for over eight years until his death on January 1, 1934.
  • After McGowin's death, his estate's executors continued the payments until January 27, 1934, at which point they ceased.

Procedural Posture:

  • Joe Webb (plaintiff) brought an action in assumpsit against the executors of J. Greeley McGowin's estate (defendants) in an Alabama trial court.
  • The defendants filed demurrers to Webb's amended complaint, arguing it failed to state a cause of action because the underlying agreement lacked consideration.
  • The trial court sustained the demurrers, ruling in favor of the defendants.
  • As a result of the trial court's adverse ruling, Webb took a non-suit and appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals of Alabama.
  • Webb is the appellant; McGowin's executors are the appellees.

Locked

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 moral obligation arising from a promisor receiving a material benefit, such as being saved from death or serious injury, constitute sufficient consideration to support a subsequent promise to pay the promisee for that benefit?


Opinions:

Majority - Bricken, Presiding Judge

Yes. A subsequent promise to pay for a previously rendered service is enforceable when the service provided a material benefit to the promisor. The court reasoned that saving McGowin from death or grievous bodily harm was a material benefit of immense value, not merely a sentimental one. This material benefit created a strong moral obligation for McGowin to compensate Webb. When McGowin subsequently made an express promise to pay, that promise was supported by sufficient consideration arising from this moral obligation. The court rejected the argument that past consideration is no consideration in this context, holding that the subsequent promise acts as a ratification of the service, creating a presumption that it was rendered at the promisor's request. The court further noted that consideration exists where there is a benefit to the promisor (McGowin's life was saved) or a detriment to the promisee (Webb's life-altering injuries).


Concurring - Samford, Judge

Yes. While acknowledging that the legal question is doubtful and a strict application of rules might bar recovery, the judge concurred with the majority's conclusion. The concurrence is based on the principle that law should not be separated from justice, especially in a case where the equitable result is clear.



Analysis:

This case establishes the 'material benefit rule,' a significant exception to the traditional contract principle that past consideration is not valid consideration. By holding that a moral obligation coupled with a previously received material benefit can support a subsequent promise, the decision broadens the scope of enforceable contracts. This precedent allows courts to enforce promises made in recognition of life-saving or other significant, unrequested acts, thereby aligning legal enforceability with principles of equity and justice. The ruling influences future cases involving emergency services or unsolicited benefits by providing a basis for recovery where traditional contract formation elements are absent.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Webb v. McGowin (1935)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"