KSupreme Court of Nebraska, 1898draftborradorunverifiedsin verificar

Ricketts v. Scothorn

57 Neb. 51, 77 N.W. 365 (1898)

A grandfather's note so she would never work again, and the job she quit

In one lineEn una línea: An estate is estopped from denying consideration for a gift note when the promisor intended the promisee to quit her job in reliance and she did.La sucesión no puede negar la consideration de un pagaré gratuito cuando el promitente quería que la beneficiaria dejara su empleo confiando en él y lo hizo.
RuleRegla: Where a promisor intentionally influences the promisee to alter her position for the worse on the faith of a gratuitous promise, equitable estoppel bars the promisor (and his estate) from asserting lack of consideration.
Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso: The ancestor of promissory estoppel (casebook Section 4, pp. 120–130): the note was a gift without consideration, but because the grandfather intended her to quit and she did, the estate was estopped from pleading lack of consideration. R.2d § 90 later made the idea a doctrine.
Procedural posturePostura procesal: The granddaughter sued the grandfather's executor on a promissory note; judgment for her, affirmed.

Facts

John Ricketts handed his granddaughter Katie Scothorn a note for $2,000 payable on demand with interest, saying he had fixed things so she would not have to work any more. She quit her bookkeeping job. He paid some interest and expressed regret that he could not pay the principal before his death. The executor refused to pay.

Procedural posture

Judgment for Katie; affirmed.

Issue

Whether the note was enforceable despite lacking consideration.

Holding

Yes, by estoppel. The grandfather intended her to rely on the note by giving up her employment, she did so, and it would be inequitable for the estate to deny the consideration.

Reasoning

The court found no consideration: her quitting was not requested as an exchange. But equitable estoppel prevents a party who induced reliance from asserting a position inconsistent with the promise; having caused her to give up her job, the grandfather could not have pleaded want of consideration, and neither could his estate.

Rule (own words)

A gift promise that was meant to change someone’s life, and did, will be enforced against the promisor who caused the change.

What-ifs

Katie kept working and merely spent more: reliance not substantial or not intended; the note is a gift.
The grandfather said: quit your job and I will give you $2,000: bargain; ordinary consideration.
Today: R.2d § 90 enforces the promise or limits the remedy as justice requires; a court might award only reliance damages.

Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables

Was quitting her job consideration?

No: the grandfather did not ask her to quit as the price of the note; he said none of his grandchildren worked and she need not. The court found a gift, then used estoppel.

Why does this case matter more than its facts?

It shows courts enforcing gratuitous promises on reliance before the Restatement; § 90 generalized it as promissory estoppel, and Kirksey would likely come out the other way under it.

promissory estoppel consideration reliance (detrimental)gratuitous promise (nudum pactum)

Compare withComparar con: Kirksey v. Kirksey (contrasts), Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co. (companion)

AssignedAsignado: 2026-09-29

Read the public opinionLeer la opinión (texto público). SourceFuente: Own brief from the public opinion as excerpted in the casebook; verify quotations against the opinion..