## Facts

- Taylor assaulted his wife, who fled and took refuge in Harrington’s home.
- The next day, Taylor entered Harrington’s home and began another assault on his wife.
- During the confrontation, Taylor’s wife knocked him down with an axe and was about to strike him again in a manner that threatened to kill or severely injure him.
- Harrington intervened by catching the descending axe to stop the blow.
- The axe struck Harrington’s hand, badly mutilating it, and Taylor’s life was saved.
- After the incident, Taylor orally promised to pay Harrington for her damages and made only a small payment.
- Taylor then refused to pay more, and Harrington sued to enforce the promise as a contract obligation based on her injuries sustained while saving Taylor.

## Issues

1. Whether Harrington’s voluntary, humanitarian rescue act constituted consideration sufficient to support Taylor’s subsequent promise to compensate her.
2. Whether a promisor’s moral obligation or gratitude for an unrequested past benefit can make a later promise legally enforceable in contract.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining Taylor’s demurrer.
- The court held that Harrington’s act, though life-saving and injurious to her, was a voluntary humanitarian intervention and did not supply legally recognized consideration for Taylor’s later promise.
- Because the complaint alleged no consideration supporting the promise, it failed to state a cause of action in contract, and dismissal was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Consideration requires a bargained-for exchange; an act is not consideration for a later promise when the act was performed before the promise and not in exchange for it.
- A voluntary humanitarian act performed without request is not legal consideration for a subsequent promise to pay.
- A moral obligation, including gratitude for a benefit received, does not by itself create a legal obligation enforceable in contract.
- Past, unrequested benefits generally cannot serve as consideration for a later promise, absent a recognized doctrinal basis creating a legal duty.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a rescuer’s voluntary life-saving intervention, undertaken without a bargain or request, is not consideration for a later promise to compensate; the promise reflects gratitude and moral duty, not an enforceable contract, so the complaint was properly dismissed.


Harrington v. Taylor, 225 N.C. 690, 36 S.E.2d 227 (N.C. 1945)