## Facts

- William Poppe owned real property in Turner County, South Dakota.
- George Poppe occupied the premises as William Poppe’s tenant.
- In 1904, at the tenant’s request, George F. Edson drilled and cased a 250-foot well on the premises and obtained water.
- The well was alleged to be a valuable improvement that increased the value of the property and was used by occupants with the landlord’s knowledge and consent.
- On or about August 5, 1905, after examining the well, the landlord expressly ratified the tenant’s act of having the well drilled and promised to pay Edson the reasonable value of the drilling and casing.
- The landlord later refused to pay.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord’s promise, made after completion of a tenant-requested improvement, is unenforceable as based on past consideration.
2. Whether allegations that the landlord accepted, used, and expressly ratified a valuable improvement to his land sufficiently plead consideration to support the landlord’s later promise to pay.

## Decision

- The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Edson.
- The court held the complaint stated a cause of action and was not defeated by the past-consideration objection.
- The trial court properly overruled the landlord’s objection to the introduction of any evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A promise to pay for services already rendered is generally unenforceable if supported only by past services.
- A post-performance promise may be enforceable where the promisor, with knowledge, accepts a present benefit and expressly ratifies the transaction, and the promise is made in consideration of that accepted benefit.
- On a pre-evidence objection that a pleading fails to state a claim, allegations of ownership, valuable improvement to the promisor’s property, knowledgeable acceptance/use, and express ratification and promise to pay can sufficiently plead consideration.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the landlord’s later promise to pay because the pleadings alleged more than a gratuitous promise for completed work: the landlord examined, accepted, and expressly ratified a continuing, valuable improvement to his property, making the accepted benefit adequate consideration to support the promise.


Edson v. Poppe, 24 S.D. 466, 124 N.W. 441 (S.D. 1910)