## Facts

- Theresa Schnell died leaving a will purporting to give $200 each to J.B. Nell, Wendelin Lorenz, and Donata Lorenz.
- Theresa owned no property in her own name at death, so the bequests could not be satisfied from her estate.
- Theresa’s husband, Zacharias Schnell, owned (or the law treated as reverting to him) the relevant property, and the will did not legally charge his property with the bequests.
- After Theresa’s death, Zacharias signed a written agreement promising to pay the three legatees $200 each in installments.
- The agreement recited consideration as: (1) one cent to be paid by the legatees, (2) Zacharias’s love and affection for Theresa and recognition of her contributions during marriage, and (3) Theresa’s expressed wish in her will that the legatees receive the sums.
- Zacharias refused to pay; Nell sued to enforce the written promise.

## Issues

1. Whether the written agreement was supported by legally sufficient consideration where the recited consideration consisted of one cent, Theresa’s testamentary wishes, and Zacharias’s moral motives tied to Theresa’s past contributions.
2. Whether an alleged “compromise” or forbearance relating to the legatees’ purported rights under the will could supply consideration when the underlying claim was legally groundless.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the plaintiff and remanded.
- The court held the agreement lacked sufficient consideration and was not an enforceable contract.
- One cent was nominal and illusory consideration for a promise to pay $600 where the exchange was strictly fixed monetary sums.
- Theresa’s will created no legal obligation enforceable against Zacharias because she left no property to fund the bequests and his property was not charged with payment.
- Love and affection, and recognition of a spouse’s past services, were moral or past considerations and did not support a later promise to pay money to third parties.
- Any supposed compromise of the legatees’ claim failed as consideration because the claim under the will was legally baseless.

## Legal Principles

- Consideration must reflect a real bargained-for exchange; a purely nominal payment may be insufficient when used to support a disproportionately large promise involving fixed sums of money.
- A testamentary wish that cannot operate on any property does not create a legal claim that can serve as consideration for a third party’s promise to pay.
- Moral obligation and past services, without a present exchange, are not valid consideration for a new promise, especially where the promise runs to third persons.
- Compromise or forbearance is consideration only if the underlying claim is at least colorable; compromising a legally groundless claim does not bind the promisor.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enforce a post-death promise to pay purported legacies because the agreement’s stated grounds—one cent, moral motives, and an unenforceable will—did not provide legal consideration, and any asserted compromise rested on a claim with no legal foundation.


Schnell v. Nell, 17 Ind. 29 (Ind. 1861)