How Did Pearsall V. Alexander Case Digest

Pearsall v. Alexander
This case involves a consideration which is the inducement to make a contract enforceable. Pearsall and Alexander had an agreement to share to proceeds. But when Alexander had a $20,000 winning ticket, he refused to give Pearsall anything, which led Pearsall to sue Alexander for a breach of an agreement. Court ruled in favor of Pearsall, and Alexander must share the winnings enforced by valid agreement. I think Court was right on the decision based on a fact that they always had mutual agreement that they would share the winnings. Although since none of the agreements are written, anyone could have denied about having any kind of agreement at all. It would have dragged this case lot longer.
Denny v. Reppert
First State Bank of Eubank, Kentucky was robbed by three armed men. Based on the information supplied by four employees of the bank, three law enforcement officials, consisting two state police officers and deputy sheriff in a neighboring county, were able to catch the criminals. All seven claimed for the reward, but the trial court held that only Reppert, a deputy sheriff, was entitled to the reward. Bank employees had pre-existing obligations to supply information about bank robbers and state police officers also had a duty to apprehend the robbers. Only Reppert, who was a deputy sheriff in a neighboring county, did not have any obligation to apprehend the robbers, thus making him the only person eligible to claim the reward. I agree with an outcome of this case, but just based on the fact that Reppert is a sheriff from a neighboring