Case ID: ky-op_5/html/0575-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Judge Peters :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John A. Rain, etc., v. Kitty Sturgeon’s Admr.
    Gifts — Causa Mortis — By Delivery — Consideration—Mere Promise Cannot be Enforced.
    An individual can mate a gift by delivery but his mere promise to mate a gift can not be enforced, although in writing, unless there is a consideration for the promise. The fact that one named a child for another, where there is no relationship existing, is not sufficient to uphold a promise.
    APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.
    February 22, 1872.
    
      
      Wilson, for appellant.
    
    
      Merriott, for appellee.
    
   Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The paper on its face shows that Mrs. Sturgeon, who signed it, never intended it to have the force and character of a valid promisory note in her life time.

It was not delivered to be enforced against her, but against her estate after her death.

An individual can make a gift of goods, chattels and money to another by delivery, but his promises to make a. gift of any of these things cannot be enforced. But if there is a consideration for the promise, it is not a gift. Phelps vs. Phelps, 28 Barb. 121, 7. Johns; Repts. 25. Pearsons vs. Pearson. We then must inquire whether there is a sufficient consideration proved in this case to uphold the promise. It does not appear that there was any consideration for the promise except that appellant had named a daughter for Mrs. Sturgeon, but there was no relation between the parties, and no consideration of blood, therefore, existed to uphold the promise. It is then a mere promise to pay a sum of money as a mere gratuity or gift, and, although it is in writing, cannot be enforced. Mark v. Clark & Wife, 11 B. Monroe 44. Judgment must be affirmed.