Lumber belonging to D fell into a river and was about to be washed away while D was absent.
P, without asking D, used his time and men to retrieve the lumber from the river and asked D to pay $20 for the effort.
D refused to pay.
Procedural History:
P won in lower court.
Reversed on appeal, find for D
Issues:
If a party performs an act for another party without that party's knowledge or assent, is that party liable for restitution with respect to the performance of that act?
Holding/Rule:
Parties are not liable for restitution for acts performed by parties without their knowledge or assent.
To be liable, a party must request the performance or, after the performance, promise to pay for it.
Reasoning:
To be liable, a party must request the performance or, after the performance, promise to pay for it.
Acts of this kind are common; if people could perform acts of kindness and then demand money for them, the world would "abound with ruinous litigation and [would] overthrow…personal rights and civil freedom".
The law should not permit friendly acts to afterwards be turned into demands for money.
Dissent:
None.
Notes:
Public policy (what are our relational requirements in society?)
