--- title: "Mills v. Wyman" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/mills-v-wyman --- # Mills v. Wyman Mills v. Wyman is a foundational case on the doctrine of past consideration, establishing that a moral obligation arising from benefits previously conferred does not constitute legally sufficient consideration to enforce a subsequent promise. The case draws a clear line between moral duty and legal obligation, holding that gratitude and moral obligation alone cannot create an enforceable contract. It is one of the most important early American cases on the limits of consideration. ## Citation 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 207 (1825) ## Year 1825 ## Court Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ## Facts Daniel Mills cared for Levi Wyman, a young man who had fallen ill while returning from a sea voyage. Mills provided lodging, nursing, and other care for approximately two weeks until Levi died. After learning of Mills's kindness to his son, Seth Wyman (Levi's father) wrote to Mills promising to pay his expenses. Seth Wyman subsequently refused to honor his promise, and Mills sued to enforce it. ## Procedural History Mills sued Seth Wyman in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to recover the expenses he incurred caring for Levi. The court found for the defendant, holding that the promise was unenforceable for lack of consideration. ## Issue Whether a father's promise to pay for care previously provided to his adult son by a stranger is enforceable when the promise was made after the care was rendered and was motivated by moral gratitude rather than a bargained-for exchange. ## Holding The court held that Seth Wyman's promise was unenforceable because the consideration (the care provided to Levi) was past consideration, having been fully completed before the promise was made. A moral obligation arising from past benefits, no matter how significant, does not constitute legally sufficient consideration to support a promise. The promise was a mere gift promise motivated by gratitude, not a binding contractual obligation. ## Reasoning The court acknowledged that moral obligation might, in some systems of jurisprudence, provide a basis for enforcement. However, the court firmly established that in American law, a mere moral obligation without a prior legal duty does not constitute consideration. The care was voluntarily provided without any request from Seth Wyman and without any prior obligation on his part. By the time Seth made his promise, the services had already been rendered and could not be 'bargained for' in any meaningful sense. The court recognized the tension between moral intuition (the father should keep his promise) and legal doctrine (past consideration is not consideration), but concluded that extending enforcement to purely moral obligations would open the door to unlimited liability and undermine the requirement of a bargained-for exchange. ## Impact Mills v. Wyman became the leading case establishing that past consideration is not consideration and that moral obligation alone cannot support a contract. The case has been regularly cited and contrasted with Webb v. McGowin, which created a narrow exception for cases where the benefit conferred prevented serious harm or death. The Restatement (Second) of Contracts Section 86 partially adopted the Webb v. McGowin approach, allowing enforcement of promises made in recognition of material benefits previously received, but the general rule of Mills v. Wyman remains the majority position. ## Key Quotes - A deliberate promise, in writing, made freely and without any mistake, one which may lead the party to whom it is made into contracts and expenses, cannot be broken without a violation of moral duty. But if there was nothing paid or promised for it, the law, perhaps wisely, leaves the execution of it to the conscience of him who makes it. - The promise was made to the plaintiff, but it was not made for a consideration; the plaintiff had no interest in it; he had parted with nothing, done nothing, and engaged to do nothing, upon the strength of it. - It is only when the party making the promise gains something, or he to whom it is made loses something, that the law gives the promise validity. ## Related Cases - webb-v-mcgowin - hamer-v-sidway - ricketts-v-scothorn - alaska-packers-association-v-domenico ## Exam Relevance Mills v. Wyman is a standard exam case on past consideration and the limits of moral obligation as a basis for contract enforcement. Professors test whether students can identify past consideration and distinguish it from bargained-for consideration. Exam questions frequently pair this case with Webb v. McGowin and ask students to explain why one promise was enforceable and the other was not. ## Study Tips - Remember the core rule: past consideration is not consideration. A promise made in recognition of benefits already received is not supported by a bargained-for exchange. - Contrast with Webb v. McGowin to understand the narrow exception: where the past benefit involved saving the promisor from serious bodily harm or death, courts may enforce the subsequent promise under the material benefit rule. - Distinguish from cases of request: if the promisor had requested the services before they were performed, the subsequent promise to pay could be enforceable under an implied-in-fact contract theory. - Connect to Restatement (Second) Section 86, which allows enforcement of promises for benefits received to the extent necessary to prevent injustice, as a modern gloss on the Mills/Webb tension. ## Doctrine Established Past Consideration Rule (Moral Obligation Insufficient) --- Source: [Mills v. Wyman — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/mills-v-wyman)