Connection lost
Server error
Schnell v. Nell Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A widower promised to pay $600 to fulfill his deceased wife’s invalid will, citing as consideration one cent, love for his wife, and her wishes. The court found the promise unenforceable, holding that nominal, moral, and past consideration are legally insufficient.
Legal Significance: This case is a classic illustration of the unenforceability of promises lacking valid consideration. It establishes that merely nominal consideration (one cent for $600), moral obligations, and past services do not satisfy the bargain requirement for an enforceable contract.
Schnell v. Nell Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendant Zacharias Schnell’s wife, Theresa, died leaving a will that bequeathed $200 to each of the three plaintiffs. However, the will was invalid because Theresa possessed no separate property; all assets were held jointly with her husband and reverted to him upon her death. Acknowledging this, Schnell executed a written agreement with the plaintiffs. The agreement stated that in consideration of his love and respect for his deceased wife, her material aid in acquiring their property, her now-void wishes, and one cent received from the plaintiffs, he would pay each plaintiff $200. The agreement also noted the plaintiffs would forbear any claims against the estate arising from the invalid will. When Schnell failed to pay, the plaintiffs sued to enforce the agreement. The trial court found for the plaintiffs, holding the defendant’s answer of no consideration was insufficient. Schnell appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Are a moral obligation to honor a deceased spouse’s wishes, past services rendered by the spouse, and a nominal sum of one cent legally sufficient consideration to support a promise to pay $600?
No. The judgment is reversed. The agreement is unenforceable because it lacks Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Are a moral obligation to honor a deceased spouse’s wishes, past services rendered by the spouse, and a nominal sum of one cent legally sufficient consideration to support a promise to pay $600?
Conclusion
Schnell v. Nell serves as a foundational precedent in contract law, demonstrating Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitat
Legal Rule
A promise is not legally enforceable without valid consideration. Neither a moral Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor
Legal Analysis
The Indiana Supreme Court systematically dismantled each of the three purported considerations. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A promise to pay a large sum of money (e.g., $600)