James v. Turilli

473 S.W.2d 757 · Missouri Court of Appeals · 1971

Facts

Plaintiff Stella James, widow of Jesse E. James (son of Jesse W. James), and her daughters contended that Jesse W. James was killed on April 3, 1882. Defendant Rudy Turilli, operator of the "Jesse James Museum," publicly claimed that Jesse W. James lived many years after 1882 as J. Frank Dalton. On February 27, 1967, on nationwide television, Turilli offered a $10,000 reward "to anyone who could prove me wrong." In response, plaintiffs submitted affidavits to Turilli, presenting evidence that Jesse W. James was indeed killed on April 3, 1882. Plaintiffs subsequently sought to recover the $10,000 reward.

Procedural history

Plaintiffs obtained a $10,000 verdict and judgment in the trial court. The defendant appealed this judgment, raising several complaints regarding the sufficiency of the petition and evidence, the admissibility of an affidavit, and the jury instructions. This court reviewed the defendant's appeal and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Issue

The central legal question was whether defendant's reward offer was sufficiently definite to form a unilateral contract and whether plaintiffs' submission of affidavits constituted adequate performance to accept that offer. The court also considered the admissibility of the affidavits and the sufficiency of the jury instructions.

Holding

The court held that the defendant's reward offer was sufficiently definite and that the plaintiffs' evidence of performance was adequate to create a submissible case for the jury. The judgment awarding plaintiffs the $10,000 reward was affirmed.

Rule

A reward offer constitutes a unilateral contract, which is accepted by substantial performance of the requested act. The terms of such an offer, particularly words like "prove," should be given a reasonable, ordinary interpretation rather than a technical legal one, meaning evidence sufficient to persuade an ordinary person. Statements are admissible as independently relevant facts, not subject to the hearsay rule, when the fact that they were made is relevant, regardless of their truth.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.