## Facts

- Frank Manwill alleged he made payments totaling $5,506.20 on Ernest and Leta Oyler’s behalf between 1950 and 1953 related to a farm the Oylers occupied.
- Manwill alleged that in 1954 he transferred to the Oylers a grazing permit worth $1,800 and 18 head of cattle worth $3,000.
- It was conceded that any action based directly on the 1950–1954 payments and transfers was barred by the statute of limitations.
- Manwill alleged the Oylers later orally agreed to repay him; the complaint was amended to allege an October 1957 oral promise to pay $5,506.20.
- The pleading did not allege facts showing that, when the payments and transfers were made, there was an agreement for reimbursement or circumstances indicating Manwill expected repayment as a legal obligation rather than as a gratuity.

## Issues

1. Whether a subsequent oral promise to repay past benefits is enforceable when the pleaded facts show, at most, a moral obligation and no contemporaneous basis for a legal duty to repay.
2. Whether an oral promise can revive or extend a time-barred obligation where the applicable statute requires a written, signed promise to do so.
3. Whether the complaint alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action and survive a motion to dismiss.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss.
- The court held the complaint failed to state a cause of action because the alleged oral promise was not supported by legally sufficient consideration on the facts pleaded.
- The court also held the oral promise could not revive a claim barred by limitations where revival requires a written, signed promise.
- The case was remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.

## Legal Principles

- A moral obligation, standing alone, is not consideration; enforceability requires a legal benefit to the promisor or legal detriment to the promisee under circumstances recognized by contract law.
- Past material benefits may support a later promise only in limited circumstances; the facts must show more than a bare, gratuitous benefit and later promise.
- When a claim is barred by the statute of limitations, a new promise or acknowledgment that extends or revives the obligation must comply with statutory formalities; if the statute requires a signed writing, an oral promise is ineffective.
- A complaint must plead facts that, if true, establish an enforceable obligation; alleging past benefits plus a later oral promise is insufficient absent facts showing consideration and statutory compliance.

## Conclusion

The court required dismissal because the complaint alleged only past benefits and a later oral promise, without facts establishing consideration beyond moral duty, and because an oral promise could not revive obligations already barred by the statute of limitations where revival required a signed writing.


Manwill v. Oyler, 361 P.2d 177 (Utah 1961)