57 Neb. 51, 77 N.W. 365
In early May 1891, John C. Ricketts visited his granddaughter Katie Scothorn at the store where she was employed as a bookkeeper earning ten dollars per week.1 He presented her with a promissory note dated May the first, 1891, promising to pay two thousand dollars on demand at six percent interest per annum.2 According to witness Mr. Flodene, Ricketts stated that he had fixed out something so that she did not have to work anymore because none of his grandchildren worked, and Scothorn took the note, kissed her grandfather, and commenced to cry.
Shortly after receiving the note, Scothorn notified her employer of her intention to quit work and abandoned her occupation.3 She remained without an occupation for something more than a year.4 In September 1892, with the consent and assistance of her grandfather, she obtained a position as bookkeeper with Funke & Ogden.5 Ricketts paid one year's interest on the note and, a short time before his death, expressed regret that he had not been able to pay the balance.6
John C. Ricketts died on June 8, 1894.7 Prior to his death, he informed his daughter Mrs. Scothorn that he had given the note to enable the plaintiff to quit work, and that if he could sell his farm in Ohio he would pay the note out of the proceeds.8 He at no time repudiated the obligation.9
Katie Scothorn commenced an action against Andrew D. Ricketts, executor of the last will and testament of John C. Ricketts, in the district court of Lancaster county to recover on the note.10 The petition alleged that the consideration was that she should surrender her employment and cease to work for a living, and that relying on the note she gave up her employment.11 The executor denied the allegations regarding consideration.12 The district court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.13
Whether the promissory note was given without valuable consideration?14
Yes. John C. Ricketts made no condition, requirement, or request when he delivered the note.18 He exacted no quid pro quo from Scothorn.19 The abandonment of her position was altogether voluntary and not an act done in fulfillment of any contract obligation assumed when she accepted the note.20 The instrument was therefore nothing more than a promise to make a gift in the future.21
The promissory note was given without valuable consideration.22
Whether the circumstances of this case give rise to an equitable estoppel which ought to preclude the defendant from alleging that the note is lacking in consideration?23
Yes. John C. Ricketts by his words and conduct intentionally influenced Katie Scothorn to alter her position for the worse on the faith of the note being paid when due.27 He suggested that she might abandon her employment and rely in the future upon the bounty which he promised, contemplating such action on her part as a reasonable and probable consequence of his gift.28
Scothorn did abandon her ten-dollar-per-week position and remained without an occupation for more than a year in reliance on the note.29 It would be grossly inequitable to permit the executor to resist payment on the ground that the promise was given without consideration after allowing the plaintiff to incur such a detrimental change of position.30 The petition charged the elements of an equitable estoppel and the evidence conclusively establishes them.31
The circumstances give rise to an equitable estoppel which precludes the defendant from alleging that the note is lacking in consideration, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed.32