Editing Mills v. Wyman

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
|citation=20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 207 (1825)
|date=1825
|subject=Contracts
}}
'''Facts'''

The plaintiff took care of the defendant’s son. The son was 25 years old, and no longer officially apart of the defendant’s family, because he had moved out and was of age and on his own. He had returned from a sea voyage, and became very ill. The plaintiff took him into their home, and took care of him until he died. The son’s parents then wrote a note to the plaintiff, promising to pay them back for their expenses in taking care of their son.


'''Procedural History'''

Trial court directed to non-suit, to which the plaintiff filed exceptions.


'''Issues'''

Whether legally binding consideration exists when a promise is made with a moral intent, but no other actual consideration exists.


'''Holding/Decision'''

Judgment entered for the defendant.


'''Reasoning'''

The general position that moral obligation is a sufficient consideration for an express promise, is to be limited in its application, to cases where at some time or other a good or valuable consideration has existed.
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Infobox Case Brief
-|court=Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
+|court=Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
-|citation=20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 207
+|citation=20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 207 (1825)
-|date=October 1, 1825
+|date=1825
 |subject=Contracts
-|facts=*Mr. Wyman = inhabitant of Massachusetts with a son who was 25 years old = defendant
+}}
-*Wyman = son who became ill while sailing back to Hartford, Connecticut
+'''Facts'''
-*Mr. Mills = a stranger who decided to care for the ailing Wyman = "Mills" = plaintiff
-*Mills took care of the Wyman’s son. The son was 25 years old, and no longer officially apart of the defendant’s family, because he had moved out and was of age and on his own. He had returned from a sea voyage, and became very ill.
+The plaintiff took care of the defendant’s son. The son was 25 years old, and no longer officially apart of the defendant’s family, because he had moved out and was of age and on his own. He had returned from a sea voyage, and became very ill. The plaintiff took him into their home, and took care of him until he died. The son’s parents then wrote a note to the plaintiff, promising to pay them back for their expenses in taking care of their son.
-*The younger & sick Wyman died.
-*The Wyman parents then wrote a note to the plaintiff, promising to pay them back for their expenses in taking care of their son.
-*Wyman never paid Mills.
+'''Procedural History'''
-|procedural_history=Trial court directed to non-suit, to which the plaintiff filed exceptions.
-Mills lost for lack of consideration supporting Wyman's promise to pay Mills.
+Trial court directed to non-suit, to which the plaintiff filed exceptions.
-|issues=Was Wyman's promise to reimburse Mills for the cost of caring for Levi Wyman (the deceased son) enforceable?
+'''Issues'''
 Whether legally binding consideration exists when a promise is made with a moral intent, but no other actual consideration exists.
-|holding=Chief Justice Parker: A promise based on moral obligation, but lacking legal consideration or a pre-existing legal duty, is not enforceable.
-Wyman behaved disgracefully & dis-honorably, but we decide in his favor legally.
-|judgment=Affirmed
-|reasons=The general position that moral obligation is a sufficient consideration for an express promise, is to be limited in its application, to cases where at some time or other a good or valuable consideration has existed.
+'''Holding/Decision'''
-The deceased Wyman (son) was 25 years old. His father wasn't supposed to care for him. The cost of care shouldn't be passed to the father of the 25-year-old deceased son.
+Judgment entered for the defendant.
-|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
-|link=https://casetext.com/case/mills-v-wyman
-|case_text_source=CaseText
+'''Reasoning'''
-}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
-|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/mills-v-wyman
+The general position that moral obligation is a sufficient consideration for an express promise, is to be limited in its application, to cases where at some time or other a good or valuable consideration has existed.
-|source_type=Video summary
-|case_text_source=Quimbee
-}}
-|case_videos={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
-|service=YouTube
-|id=1uJAHERPjRs
-}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
-|service=YouTube
-|id=FhAeCRlfA90
-}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
-|service=YouTube
-|id=1KUMlqKtDhk
-}}
-}}