Kirksey v. Kirksey

8 Ala. 131 · 1845

Facts

The plaintiff incurred loss and inconvenience by breaking up her previous arrangements and moving a distance of sixty miles to the defendant's location. This move was made in reliance on the defendant's promise to provide her with a house and land to cultivate. The defendant's promise was intended to support her until she could raise her family.

Procedural history

The case originated in a lower court, which rendered a judgment. This court is now reversing that judgment. The reversal is made pursuant to the agreement of the parties.

Issue

The legal question is whether the plaintiff's actions of breaking up her home and moving sixty miles constituted sufficient consideration to make the defendant's promise legally binding. Specifically, the court considered if the defendant's promise was an enforceable contract or merely a gratuitous offer.

Holding

The court held that the defendant's promise was a mere gratuity and therefore an action for its breach will not lie. Consequently, the judgment of the court below was reversed.

Rule

The established rule is that a promise made as a mere gratuity, without sufficient consideration, is not legally enforceable. The court reasoned that while the plaintiff suffered loss and inconvenience, these actions were not considered bargained-for consideration by the majority of the judges. Therefore, a promise lacking this essential element of consideration cannot form the basis for a breach of contract action.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-10-10. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.