Story Case

K. L. McFadden lost his pedigreed bull dog. He inserted the following advertisement in the daily paper:

50 Dollars Reward

I will pay $50 to the person who returns my bull dog before the expiration of thirty days.

(Signed) K. L. McFadden".

Henry Greenup saw the notice and asserted to McFadden that he was determined to search for and find the dog. After hunting for twenty-six days, just when certain clues seemed to augur success, he saw this in the paper:

"I have found that my dog was not pedigreed and I, therefore, withdraw my offer of reward.

(Signed) K. L. McFadden".

Greenup went to McFadden and told him that he had spent twenty-six days looking for the dog and was entitled to some remuneration, because he would probably have found the dog before the expiration of the thirty days. McFadden refused to pay him anything, on the ground that the dog was not returned. Greenup brought suit against McFadden and alleged that he accepted McFadden's offer of reward by promising to find the dog. Which should win the suit ?

Ruling Court Case. Des Moines Valley Railway Company Vs. Graff, Volume 27 Iowa Reports, Page 99; Volume 1 American Reports, Page 256

In April of 1864, Graff, among other citizens of Pella, agreed "to obtain and to secure subscriptions to the capital stock of the Des Moines Valley Railway Company, in accordance with blank forms furnished by the company, to an amount of at least ten thousand dollars, provided that said company runs its tracks through Pella, as heretofore surveyed."About $10,000 in subscriptions was obtained on these promissory notes, and the railroad company constructed its road along the route originally surveyed through Pella. When they had finished the work, Graff refused to deliver these notes which had been procured for the benefit of the road. The company, thereupon, brought this suit to recover them.

The defense of Graff consisted in the fact that the offer of the citizens of Pella was never accepted, and that, therefore, no contract was ever made and completed between them.

Decision

The offer of the citizens of Pella was to furnish at least $10,000, evidenced by notes, if the company would build its road through Pella. The completion of the building of the road by the company, in reliance upon the notes to be obtained, was an acceptance of the offer of the citizens. This made a binding contract between, and the company is entitled to the notes.

Mr. Justice Wright said in part: "Then as to the want of mutuality and a consideration, it is plain that, if A promise to pay B a sum of money if he will do a particular act, and B does that act, A is liable though B did not at the time engage to do the act; for, upon performance of the condition by the promisee, the contract is clothed with a valid consideration, which relates back, and the promise at once becomes binding".

Therefore, judgment was given for the railroad company.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

An offer may be made, which contemplates acceptance, by an act. In such a case, nothing less than the doing of the act will ever amount to an acceptance of the offer. When the act contemplated has been done, the contract becomes complete, and the rights of the party thereunder become fixed at that time. In the Story Case, the offer made, contemplated acceptance by the return of the dog. Consequently, the promise of Greenup to find the dog did not constitute an acceptance of the offer. Judgment should be given for McFadden.