Contracts Limerick of the Week: Brackenbury v. Hodgkin

I promised last week that I would discuss Brackenbury v. Hodgkin, 102 A.2d 106(1917), and provide a companion Limerick to go with Fitzpatrick v. Michael. In that case, I suggested that specific performance might have led theparties to a reasonable settlement of their dispute.  Ms. Fitzpatrick had been serving as Mr. Michael’s live-innurse and caretaker.  Apparently inducedby his grasping, conniving relatives to oust her, Mr. Michael terminated therelationship.  The court feltuncomfortable ordering two people to live together.  I think the court could have done so confident in theknowledge that they would quickly come to an agreement that would give Ms.Fitzpatrick at least a partial benefit of the bargain but would not involvecourt-supervised cohabitation.

But the next case suggests at least one reason why lawprofessors might make lousy judges.  People have this nasty habit of not always behaving as rational choicetheory suggests they should.  SarahHodgkin (pictured), an aging widow, had six children, none of whom were willing to lookafter her.   Her one daughteragreed to do so in return for income from the farm on which Sarah lived, use ofthe household goods and ownership after the property after Sarah’s demise.  So, the Brackenbury family moved fromIndependence, Missouri to the outskirts of Lewiston, Maine.

It took all of two weeks before “the relations between theparties grew most disagreeable,” and Sarah sought to get out of her promise bytransferring ownership of the property to her son Walter.   The Supreme Judicial Court ofMaine found: (1) a contract that (2) created an equitable interest, (3) thatSarah had breached her duty of performance because she was primarily at fault;and (4) that the Brackenbury family had no adequate remedy at law.

The parties were ordered to continue their arrangement,which included cohabitation.  Ifthey had been rational, the parties ought to have either quickly settled orlearned to get along.   Theychose to do neither.  Poor Sarahwas forced to eat with an old iron fork with two tines broken off and when sheasked that food be passed her way at the table, it was passed in the PeytonManning sense of the word.

This conduct is Limerickworthy.  As the Fitzpatrick Limerickis from the perspective of the judge, this one of from Brackenbury’sperspective:

Brackenbury v. Hodgkin

I’d sooner kiss a chimera
Than put up with my in-law, Old Sarah,
Now whenever she dines,
Her fork has but two tines,
And her home ain’t no French Riviera.

[Jeremy Telman]