Caption:
Glover v Jewish War Veterans of United States, Post No. 58, 68 A.2d 233 (D.C. 1949), District
of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1946
Facts:
In this case, two indiviudals were wanted for murder of the deceased victim, Maurice L.
Bernstein. A day after the murder, the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America
(Defendant) posted a reward in the local newspaper of $500 for someone’s information on where
to locate the suspects. A couple days later, one of the two suspects, Jesse James Patton, was
found by the police and arrested. The police contacted Mary Glover (Plaintiff) on June 11th, the
mother of the second suspect's girlfriend (Reginald Wheeler). Glover told the police that both
Wheeler and her daughter left the city on June 5th, the day of the murder. She informed the
police that she did not know their whereabouts; however, informed the police of “several”
relatives and addresses where they might have gone. The police found Wheeler and his girlfriend
in Ridge Spring, South Carolina, and arrested Wheeler at that location on June 13th. Glover
learned on June 12 that there was a significant reward for finding Wheeler. She claims, with the
support of her husband who was present at the interview with the police, that she should receive
the financial reward for her valuable information given to the authorities. The trial court ruled in
favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed the case.
Procedural Posture:
The trial court denied the claimant’s position for financial compensation.
Issue:
This case reveals the issue of whether an individual is entitled to a financial reward even if they
do not know one is offered.
Rule:
The relevant rule in this case is contract law. There was no official contract in writing that Glover
would provide information about the suspects location in exchange for financial compensation.
Reasoning/Analysis:
Both the offeror of the reward (defendant) and the offeree (plaintiff) must have mutual
knowledge of the deal for a transaction to be legally binding.
Holding:
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny the plaintiffs position for a reward.
As concluded in the trial court, both courts decided that it is unreasonable to justify granting the
plaintiff an offer she didn't know existed, especially since it was after she had given the
authorities the needed information to make the arrest of their suspect.