Document Sample
RICKETTS v. SCOTHORN Powered By Docstoc
					                                      RICKETTS v. SCOTHORN

Case Reminder

Citation                Ricketts v. Scothorn. Supreme Court of Nebraska 57 Neb. 51 77 N.W. 365

Statement of the case   The Plaintiff (the grand daughter of Andrew D. rickets) was promised by the
                        plaintiff Mr. Rickets to be paid 2,000 dollars with 6% interest per year. Grand
                        daddy says or rather implied that she did not have to work anymore. Grand
                        daughter brought an action to enforce

Procedure               In the district court the Plaintiff Katie Scothorn recovered a judgment against the
                        defendant Andrew D. Ricketts. The Supreme Court affirms

Statement of fact       John c Ricketts the defendant promised his grand daughter that he would pay her
                        2,000 dollars with a 6% interest per year and implied that she would no logner
                        have to work.

                        Miss Scothorn told her employer that she no longer wanted to work any more
                        since her grand father was going to provide for her financially.

                        on June 8 1894 Mr. Ricketts died. He had paid on years interest on the note and a
                        short time before his death expressed regret that he had not been able to pay the

                        Mr. Ricketts told his daughter Mrs Scothorn that he was planning to pay off his
                        grand daughter once he sold the farm in Ohio.

Issue                   Is there reliance by the Plaintiff upon the promise made by Andrew D Ricketts?

                        Whether or not there was consideration manifested by her quitting her job?

Holding                 Yes there was a reliance by the plaintiff upon the promise made by Mr. Ricketts.
                        An estopel is a right arising from acts, admissions, or conduct which have
                        induced a change of position in accordance with the real or apparent intention of
                        the part against whom they are alleged

                        No there was no consideration.

Rational                The plaintiff in this case quit her job when she found out that her grand daughter
                        made her what was apparently a gift and not a contract. Quitting her job was
                        never a condition of getting the money and merely suggested by her Grand
                        Father. But. Having intentionally influence the plaintiff to alter her position for
                        the worse on the faith of the note being paid when due it would be grossly
                        inequitable to permit the maker or the executor of his will to no pay the grand