## Facts

- Antillico Kirksey, a widow with several children, lived on public land under a lease arrangement and was “comfortably settled.”
- Isaac Kirksey, her brother-in-law, sent her a letter stating that if she would “come down and see” him, he would “let [her] have a place to raise [her] family,” citing concern for her circumstances.
- Within about one to two months, Antillico left her prior living arrangement without disposing of it and moved roughly 60 miles to Isaac’s location with her family.
- Isaac initially provided her with comfortable housing and land to cultivate for about two years.
- After two years, Isaac directed her to leave; he placed her in less comfortable housing and later required her to leave that as well.
- Antillico sued seeking damages based on Isaac’s alleged promise.

## Issues

1. Whether Isaac’s letter constituted an enforceable contract supported by consideration when Antillico relocated and altered her living situation in reliance on the promise.
2. Whether Antillico’s move and associated inconvenience were bargained-for detriment or merely a condition attached to a gratuitous promise.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed a jury verdict for Antillico (which had awarded $200).
- The court held Isaac’s promise was a mere gratuity and unenforceable for lack of consideration.
- A separate view expressed that the plaintiff’s “loss and inconvenience” in moving could be sufficient consideration, but that view did not control the disposition.

## Legal Principles

- A promise is not enforceable as a contract without consideration.
- A condition attached to a donative promise does not supply consideration unless the condition is requested as the price of the promise (i.e., part of a bargained-for exchange).
- Detrimental reliance alone, without bargained-for consideration, does not create contractual liability under strict consideration doctrine.

## Conclusion

The court treated the defendant’s invitation to relocate and receive land as a gratuitous family promise rather than an exchange supported by consideration, and it therefore denied contractual enforcement even though the plaintiff undertook substantial relocation and inconvenience in reliance on the promise.


Kirksey v. Kirksey, 8 Ala. 131 (Ala. 1845)