Wolford v. Powers
85 Ind. 294 (1882)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration freely bargained for by the parties, and any consideration that has some value in the eyes of the law, including the surrender of a legal right or the performance of a service, is sufficient to support a contract in the absence of fraud.
Facts:
- Charles Lehman, an elderly widower, was a close friend of the appellant, Wolford, and his family.
- On April 18, 1878, a son was born to Wolford.
- Shortly after the birth, Lehman requested that Wolford name the child 'Charles Lehman Wolford.'
- In exchange for naming the child as requested, Lehman promised to provide for the child generously and give him a good education.
- Relying on this promise, Wolford named the child Charles Lehman Wolford.
- Wolford and his wife also performed various personal services for Lehman at his request, such as caring for him during brief illnesses and taking him for carriage rides.
- In September 1878, to fulfill his earlier promise and compensate for the services, Lehman proposed executing a $10,000 promissory note to Wolford.
- At Lehman's suggestion, and to ensure the note's legal validity, Wolford paid Lehman $40 as a formal money consideration before Lehman executed the note.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant, Wolford, filed a complaint in the trial court against the appellee, the administrator of Lehman's estate, to enforce a promissory note.
- The appellee's answer alleged that the consideration for the note was inadequate.
- The appellant filed a reply detailing the full circumstances of the agreement, including the naming of the child and services rendered.
- The appellee demurred to the appellant's reply, arguing that the facts alleged were legally insufficient to constitute valid consideration.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer, entering judgment for the appellee (Lehman's estate).
- The appellant, Wolford, appealed the trial court's judgment to this court.
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 combination of naming a child as requested, performing minor personal services, and a nominal sum of money constitute sufficient legal consideration to support a promissory note for a significantly larger amount?
Opinions:
Majority - Elliott, J.
Yes, the combination of naming the child, performing services, and the monetary payment constitutes sufficient legal consideration. The general rule is that where there is no fraud and a party receives the consideration they contracted for, the contract will be upheld regardless of its perceived adequacy. Courts do not measure the value of a bargained-for exchange; the value of things contracted for is measured by the appetite of the contractors. The court found two sufficient, indeterminate considerations apart from the money: 1) The services rendered by Wolford and his wife were not merely a past or voluntary consideration because they were continuous and performed at Lehman's precedent request, which couples the promise to the services. 2) Wolford's surrender of his legal right and privilege to name his child as he pleased was a detriment to him and a benefit to Lehman, as determined by Lehman himself. The gratification of a promisor's fancy or ambition is a valid, though indeterminate, consideration which the court will not attempt to value.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational illustration of the contract law principle that courts will not assess the adequacy of consideration, only its sufficiency. It reinforces the doctrine of freedom of contract, allowing parties to determine for themselves the value of a bargained-for exchange. The decision establishes that forgoing a legal right, such as naming one's child, constitutes a valid detriment to the promisee and is therefore sufficient consideration. This precedent is significant in cases where consideration is sentimental or personal rather than purely pecuniary, affirming that a promisor's subjective benefit is legally cognizable.
