## Facts

- Fitzpatrick’s bull escaped and wandered onto Boothe’s land in September 1860.
- Boothe took possession of the bull, fed and maintained it, and attempted to locate the owner.
- Boothe partially followed Vermont estray procedures by posting local notices but did not complete all statutory notice steps.
- In November 1860, Boothe identified Fitzpatrick as the owner; Fitzpatrick acknowledged ownership and promised to pay Boothe for the costs of keeping the bull.
- Fitzpatrick later viewed the bull, again confirmed ownership, and again promised to pay and remove it, but delayed retrieval; Boothe continued caring for the bull.
- In May 1861, Fitzpatrick retrieved the bull after again promising payment, but left no money.
- Boothe sued for reasonable compensation for the bull’s care during the period it remained on his land.

## Issues

1. Whether the owner’s promise to pay for care of his bull, made after the caretaker had already begun providing the services without a prior request, was unenforceable as based on past consideration or mere moral obligation.
2. Whether the caretaker’s imperfect compliance with estray statutes barred recovery for the value of keeping and maintaining the animal.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Boothe.
- The court held Fitzpatrick’s promise to pay reasonable compensation for the bull’s keeping was enforceable, even though much of the care preceded the promise.
- The court allowed recovery notwithstanding Boothe’s failure to satisfy every technical requirement of estray procedures.

## Legal Principles

- A promise made in recognition of a previously received, non-gratuitous material benefit may be enforced when the promisor knowingly accepts and affirms the benefit and enforcement is needed to avoid injustice.
- Past services are not treated as merely “moral obligation” where the promisor, after learning of the benefit to his property, expressly promises to pay reasonable compensation for the services.
- Imperfect compliance with statutory estray procedures does not necessarily bar recovery when the claim is grounded in the owner’s express promise to pay for care of his own animal.
- The appropriate measure of recovery is the reasonable value of the services actually rendered and accepted (here, feeding and maintaining the bull).

## Conclusion

The court enforced Fitzpatrick’s post-benefit promise to pay for Boothe’s care of the escaped bull, treating Fitzpatrick’s knowing acceptance and ratification of the benefit as sufficient to support liability for reasonable compensation despite the past-consideration objection and incomplete estray compliance.


Boothe v. Fitzpatrick, 36 Vt. 681 (Vt. 1864)