Connection lost
Server error
Wolford v. Powers Case Brief
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 man promised $10,000 to a friend for naming a child after him and for past services. The court found that naming the child and the services, having subjective value to the promisor, constituted sufficient legal consideration to enforce the promise.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a promisee’s act of naming a child at the promisor’s request is sufficient legal consideration. Affirms the principle that courts will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration that has an indeterminate, subjective value, absent fraud.
Wolford v. Powers 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
The plaintiff, Wolford, sued the estate of Charles Lehman to enforce a $10,000 promissory note. Lehman, an elderly widower and close friend of Wolford’s family, had requested that Wolford name his newborn son “Charles Lehman Wolford.” In exchange, Lehman promised to “provide for it generously.” Subsequently, Lehman proposed executing the $10,000 note to fulfill this promise and to compensate Wolford and his wife for various personal services they had rendered at Lehman’s request. Believing a money consideration was necessary for the note to be valid, Wolford paid Lehman $40 at Lehman’s suggestion. The estate defended the suit, arguing the consideration was inadequate. The trial court sustained a demurrer to Wolford’s reply, which detailed these facts, effectively finding the consideration legally insufficient. Wolford appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is the act of naming one’s child at another’s request, combined with ongoing personal services rendered at that person’s request, legally sufficient consideration to support a substantial promissory note?
Yes. The judgment is reversed. The combination of naming the child and 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 ad
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
Is the act of naming one’s child at another’s request, combined with ongoing personal services rendered at that person’s request, legally sufficient consideration to support a substantial promissory note?
Conclusion
This case is a classic illustration of the doctrine of consideration, confirming 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
Legal Rule
Where a party contracts for the performance of an act which will 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
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centers on the fundamental contract law principle that courts 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 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In the absence of fraud, courts will not inquire into the