Kirksey v. Kirksey Case Brief

Kirksey v. Kirksey

8 Ala. 131

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Takeaway

In short, this case illustrates the traditional rule that a promise motivated by generosity, even one that induces substantial reliance, was treated by the majority as an unenforceable gift rather than a contract.

Background

After the plaintiff's husband died, her brother-in-law, the defendant, wrote to her that if she would move to his land, he would give her a place to raise her family. Relying on that assurance, she broke up her household and moved about sixty miles to the defendant's property.

The defendant initially provided her a residence and land to cultivate, but later required her to leave. The lower court entered judgment for the plaintiff. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed pursuant to the parties' agreement, because the court's majority regarded the defendant's promise as unenforceable.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the plaintiff's inconvenience and loss in abandoning her home and moving sixty miles supplied consideration for the defendant's promise to provide her a house and land.

Holding

No. The court's majority concluded that the defendant's promise was a mere gratuity and could not support an action for breach.

Reasoning

Justice Ormond stated that he was inclined to treat the plaintiff's disruption and inconvenience in moving to the defendant's land as sufficient consideration. From that perspective, her relocation was not simply an incidental event; it was the requested act that followed the defendant's assurance.

The other members of the court disagreed. They characterized the promise as a gratuitous family undertaking rather than a bargained-for exchange, and therefore concluded that no enforceable contractual obligation arose from it.

Because the majority deemed the promise gratuitous, the plaintiff could not maintain an action for its breach. The court accordingly reversed the lower court's judgment under the parties' agreement.

Dissents

Justice Ormond

Reasoning

Justice Ormond did not disagree with the judgment of reversal, which was entered pursuant to the parties' agreement, but he expressly rejected the majority's view of the legal question. He believed the plaintiff's losses and inconvenience in breaking up her household and moving sixty miles at the defendant's request were sufficient consideration for the promise.

Under Justice Ormond's view, the defendant's undertaking to furnish a house and cultivable land until the plaintiff could raise her family was enforceable because the plaintiff had incurred a meaningful detriment in reliance on, and in response to, his promise.