Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 Minn. 277

Little v. Rees

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 21, 1885

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1885-11-21

<p>Contract — Subsequent Modification — Mude Promise. — The rule that a mere naked promise is of no legal effect, applied in respect to such a promise made after a contract had been entered into, the same being relied upon as effecting a modification of the contract.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““This promise or statement was made after the contract had been entered into, and the plaintiffs, as is found, ‘had then done and completed all that was required of them under their contract with defendant.’ So far as appears, the promise was a mere naked agreement, without consideration, and could have no legal effect.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Titus v. Whiteside

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1885-11-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1950

2 district · 6 state decisions

4018851890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DioKinson, J.

¶1The court found the facts to be that the defendant contracted to pay the plaintiffs $200, ($50 of which was afterwards *278remitted by tbe plaintiffs,) “if they would find some person with whom he could trade said lot for other property, defendant agreeing to make the trade himself if the proper person were produced by plaintiffs.” The finding is further to the following effect: The plaintiffs performed the prescribed condition on their part, by introducing to the defendant as a purchaser one Peake, with whom the defendant entered into a contract under seal for the conveyance of the land in exchange for certain other lands which Peake agreed to convey to the deferidant. After the terms of this contract had been agreed upon, and immediately before the written contract was executed, the plaintiffs “told defendant that they would not charge any commission for their services unless the trade went through and was consummated.” The court also finds, in terms, that “said trade was never consummated, and that the same failed through the fault of said Peake.” The obvious import of the statement that the trade was never consummated, is that the contract between the defendant and Peake was never performed.

¶2The appellant contends that the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is erroneous, for the reason that the contract was so modified that the plaintiffs’ right to compensation depended upon the performance of the contract made with Peake. The fact, however, of such a modification of the contract does not appear. It is not found by the court, nor does it follow as a legal result from what is found, viz., that the plaintiffs “told defendant” as above recited. This promise or statement was made after the contract had been entered into, and the plaintiffs, as is found, “had then done and completed all that was required of them under their contract with defendant.” So far as appears, the promise was a mere naked agreement without consideration, and could have no legal effect.

¶3There is no merit in the point that the court found some facts not alleged in the pleadings.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/34/minn/277 · .json · Public domain