Hamer v. Sidway
Decision Date | 14 April 1891 |
Citation | 27 N.E. 256,124 N.Y. 538 |
Parties | HAMER v. SIDWAY. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the general term of the supreme court in the fourth judicial department, reversing a judgment entered on the decision of the court at special term in the county clerk's office of Chemung county on the 1st day of October, 1889. The plaintiff presented a claim to the executor of William E. Story, Sr., for $5,000 and interest from the 6th day of February, 1875. She acquired it through several mesne assignments from William E. Story, 2d. The claim being rejected by the executor, this action was brought. It appears that William E. Story, Sr., was the uncle of William E. Story, Sr., was the celebration of the golden wedding of Samuel Story and wife, father and mother of William E. Story, Sr., on the 20th day of March, 1869, in the presence of the family and invited guests, he promised his the uncle of William E. Story, 2d; that at drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he became 21 years of age, he would pay him the sum of $5,000. The nephew assented thereto, and fully performed the conditions inducing the promise. When the nephew arrived at the age of 21 years, and on the 31st day of January, 1875, he wrote to his uncle, informing him that he had performed his part of the agreement, and had thereby become entitled to the sum of $5,000. The uncle received the letter, and a few days later, and on the 6th day of February, he wrote and mailed to his nephew the following letter: The nephew received the letter, and thereafter consented that the money should remain with his uncle in accordance with the terms and conditions of the letter. The uncle died on the 29th day of January, 1887, without having paid over to his nephew any portion of the said $5,000 and interest.
H. J. Swift, for appellant.
Adelbert Moot, for respondent.
PARKER, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)
The question which provoked the most discussion by counsel on this appeal, and which lies at the foundation of plaintiff's asserted right of recovery, is whether by virtue of a contract defendant's testator, William E. Story, became indebted to his nephew, William E. Story, 2d, on his twenty-first birthday in the sum of $5,000. The trial court found as a fact that ‘on the 20th day of March, 1869, * * * William E. Story agreed to and with William E. Story, 2d, that if he would refrain from drinking liquor using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until should become twenty-one years of age, then he, the said William E. Story, would at that time pay him, the said William E. Story, 2d, the sum of $5,000 for such refraining, to which the said William E. Story, 2d, agreed,’ and that he ‘in all things fully performed his part of said agreement.’ The defendant contends that the contract was without consideration to support it, and therefore invalid. He asserts that the promisee, by refraining from the use of liquor and tobacco, was not harmed, but benefited; that that which he did was best for him to do, independently of his uncle's promise,-and insists that it follows that, unless the promisor was benefited, the contract was without consideration,-a contention which, if well founded, would seem to leave open for controversy in many cases whether that which the promisee did or omitted to do was in fact of such benefit to him as to leave no consideration to support the enforcement of the promisor's agreement. Such a rule could not be tolerated, and is without foundation in the law. The exchequer chamber in 1875 defined ‘consideration’ as follows: ‘A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.’ Courts Anson, Cont. 63. ‘In general a waiver of any legal right at the request of another party is a sufficient consideration for a promise.’ Pars. Cont. *444. ‘Any damage, or suspension, or forbearance of a right will be sufficient to sustain a promise.’ 2 Kent, Comm. (12th Ed.) *465. Pollock in his work on Contracts, (page 166,) after citing the definition given by the exchequer chamber, already quoted, says: Now, applying this rule to the facts before us, the promisee used tobacco, occasionally drank liquor, and he had a legal right to do so. That right he abandoned for a period of years upon the strength of the promise of the testator that for such forbearance he would give him $5,000. We need not speculate on the effort which may have been required to give up the use of those stimulants. It is sufficient that he restricted his lawful freedom of action within certain prescribed limits upon the faith of his uncle's agreement, and now, having fully performed the conditions imposed, it is of no moment whether such performance actually proved a benefit to the promisor, and the court will not inquire into it; but, were it a proper subject of inquiry, we see nothing in this record that would permit a determination that the uncle was not benefited in a legal sense. Few cases have been found which may be said to be precisely in point, but such as have been, support the position we have taken. In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alessi Equip., Inc. v. Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc.
...Ent. Grp. v. LBS Commc'ns Inc. , No. 91 Civ. 0534 (CSH), 1991 WL 135476, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 1991) (quoting Hamer v. Sidway , 124 N.Y. 538, 545, 27 N.E. 256 (1891) ) (internal quotations omitted). However, "courts do not inquire into the adequacy of consideration;" as "long as a contra......
-
Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 96 Civ. 7874(RWS).
...or suffered by the party to whom the promise is made as consideration for the promise made to him.'" Id. (quoting Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 545, 27 N.E. 256, 257 (1891)). Under traditional principles of contract law, the parties to a contract are entitled to make their own bargain, "ev......
-
In re Eljay Jrs., Inc., Bankruptcy No. 87-B-10094 (HCB)
...(4th ed. 1987) (hereinafter "Scott"). Third, "the property and the disposition of it must be definitely stated," Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 550, 27 N.E. 256, 258 (1891) or the corpus must be "sufficiently designated or identified to enable title thereto to pass to the trustee." Brown, 1......
-
Burns v. City of Seattle
...v. Desmarais, 79 Wash.2d 432, 439, 486 P.2d 1074 (1971) (forbearance from a legal right is valid consideration); Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256, 257 (1891) ¶ 59 The ratepayers contend, though, that the contractual payment agreement is a transparent attempt to circumvent two "leg......
-
The sacred and profane contracts machine: the complex morality of contract law in action.
...overcome reluctance to split losses by approaching a renegotiation as a chance to enhance value for both parties). (42.) Hamer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891); Balfour v. Balfour, [1919] 2 K.B. 571; Hawkins v. McGee, 146 A. 641 (N.H. (43.) When laying out his theory, Fried uses examples ......
-
Contract law in the People's Republic of China - rule or tool: can the PRC's foreign economic contract law be administered according to the rule of law?
...principle of compensation of equal value. ECL. supra note 86, at art. 5. (92.) Dernelle, supra note 6, at 349. (93.) See Hamer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256, 259 (1891) (holding that the forbearance from engaging in the vices of drinking, smoking, swearing, and gambling was sufficient consideratio......
-
The other family tree: leaving your legacy in a private foundation.
...distribution plans that are available to a grantor creating a trust). (86) See id. (describing various triggering events). (87) 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. (88) Id. at 257. (89) See id. at 256 (noting that the nephew "consented that the money should remain with his uncle in accordance with the terms ......