Pelagalli 1
Madeline Pelagalli
Hamer v. Sidway Case Brief
Citation
Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (New York Court of Appeals 1891)
Procedural History
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 this sum through several mesne assignments
from William E. Story Jr. The claim was rejected by the executor. The plaintiff appealed to
reverse the judgment made by the general term of the Supreme Court, Fourth Judicial
Department, which ruled in favor of the defendant.
Facts
William E. Story Sr. promised his nephew, William E. Story Jr., on March 20th, 1869, in front of
the family and invited guests, that he would pay the latter $5,000 if he refrained from drinking,
using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he turned 21.
William E. Story Jr. kept his promise. On January 31st, 1875, he wrote a letter to his uncle,
informing him that he performed his part of the agreement. William E. Story Sr. received the
letter on February 6th of the same year. He responded to his nephew’s letter by saying he
preferred to wait until his nephew was over to deliver the money. William E. Story Jr. consented
with his uncle’s wishes
William E. Story Sr. died on January 29th, 1887 without having paid his nephew the $5,000 and
interest.
The defendant claims that the contract was without consideration to support it, therefore, it was
invalid. However, the promisee had a legal right to drink and use tobacco which he abandoned
for $5,000.
Issues
Is forbearance legally granted activities sufficient consideration to create a valid and enforceable
contract?
Holdings
Yes. Valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing
to one of the parties or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or
undertaken by the other party.
Pelagalli 2
Rationale
In Lakota v. Newton, the defendant promised the plaintiff $100 if they abstained from drinking.
After performing the condition, the defendant demurred on the ground that the plaintiff’s
declaration did not allege a valid and sufficient consideration for the agreement of the defendant,
but the demurrer was overruled.
In Talbott v. Stemmons, the step-grandmother of the plaintiff promised them $500 at her death if
he does not chew tobacco or smoke cigars as long as she lived. If he broke the promise, he would
owe $1,000 to his mother. The step-grandmother’s executor demurred the complaint on the
ground that the agreement was not based on a sufficient consideration. The demurrer was
sustained, but was appealed and reversed. The Court of Appeals decided that, “the right to use
and enjoy the use of tobacco was a right that belonged to the plaintiff and not forbidden by the
law. The abandonment of its use may have saved him money or contributed to his health;
nevertheless, the surrender of that right caused the promise, and having the right to contract with
reference to the subject-matter, the abandonment of the use was sufficient consideration to
uphold the promise.”
In Lindell v. Rokes, it was decided that abstinence from the use of intoxicating liquors was held
to furnish a good consideration for a promissory note.
Disposition
The previous ruling was reversed in favor of the Plaintiff.