Case Name: Bartholomew against Jackson
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1822-05
Citations: 20 Johns. 28
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bartholomew against Jackson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 28–29

Head Matter:
Bartholomew against Jackson.
Labour or service voluntarily done and "mid the^íaintiff for the defendant, vityorrequest^ toriouTor'bT neficiai it may fendant, as in saving hts property from dcstruction by ground of action.
IN ERROR, on certiorari toa Justice’s Court. Jackson sued Bartholomew before a Justice, for work and labour, &c. B. pleaded non assumpsit. It appeared in evidence, that Jackson owned a wheat stubble-field, in which B. had a stack of wheat, which he had promised to remove in due season for preparing the ground for a fall crop. The time for its removal having arrived, J. sent a message to B., which, in his absence, was delivered to his family, requesting tpe immediate removal of the stack of wheat, as he wished, 5 7 on the next day, to burn the stubble on the field. The sons of B. answered, that they would remove the stack by 10 o’clock the next morning. J. waited until that hour, and. then set fire to the stubble, in a remote part of the field. The fire spreading rapidly, and threatening to burn the stack of wheat, and J., finding that B. and his sons neglected to remove the stack, set to work and removed it himself, so as to secure it for B.; and he claimed to recover damages for the work and labour in its removal. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 50 cents, on which the Justice gave judgment, with costs.

Opinion:
Platt, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. I should be very glad to affirm this judgment; for though the plaintiff was not legally entitled to sue for damages, yet to bring a certiorari on such a judgment was most unworthy, The plaintiff performed the service without the privity or Request of the defendant; and there was, in fact, no promise, express or implied. If a man humanely bestows his labour, and even risks his life, in voluntarily aiding to pre serve Isis neighbour's house from destruction by fire, the law considers the service rendered as gratuitovs, and it, therefore, forme no ground of action. The judgment must he reversed.
Judgment reversed.