Case Name: Greiner v. Greiner
Plaintiff: Maggie Greiner
Defendant: Frank Greiner (son of Maggie)
Citation: 131 Kan. 760, 293 P. 759 (1930)

Issue: Whether the plaintiff’s promise can be enforced when it lacked consideration.

Key Facts: The plaintiff (a widow) told her son, the defendant, that if he moved back to her county she would give him land for a home. She later gave him possession of an 80-acre tract of land which he moved his family to. The mother then commenced an action of forcible detention against the defendant. The mother contends that there was no consideration.

However, the son contends that there was reliance on his mother’s promise. The defendant gave up his homestead in another county, moved, established himself and his family, made some lasting and valuable improvements and other expenditures.

Procedural History: The district court ordered the plaintiff to execute a deed conveying the 80-acre tract to defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Judgment: The plaintiff should execute a deed to the defendant.

Reasoning: Although there was no consideration, in 1930 the concept of promissory estoppel had been established and can be used to enforce the promise.

 

See also Kirksey v. Kirksey

Tags: , ,

Leave your comment


UA-22721001-1