Title and Citation: Hamer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256 (1891) *
IMPORTANT* Identities of Parties: The nephew assigned the funds to Louisa Hamer (P) who brought suit against the executor of the uncles estate, Franklin Sidway (D). Procedural History: P sued D to enforce the promise in NY state court and trail court upheld the promise. D sued to appellate court that reversed the decision. P then appealed to Court of Appeals of New York. Facts: Story was told in order to receive 5,00 and interest from uncle by if he abstain from drinking, using tobaccos, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he reached age twenty-one. Uncle agreed and Story fully honored the promise by abstaining from these things until after his twenty-first birthday. Story wrote his uncle to let him that he fulfilled his promise; his uncle wrote back and said that he was entitled to the $5,000, and that the money was being held for him at a bank. Story would not be paid until the uncle thought he was capable of taking care of it, he agreed to this. Story uncle died without paying him the money, and claim was brought by P against D in New York state court seeking to enforce the promise. Issue(s): Does CONSIDERATION get satisfied to create a valid and enforceable contract require the promisor to actually receive a benefit and the promisor to experience a detriment? Does the P restraint from swearing; playing pool and cards for money and drinking satisfy consideration? Holding and Rule: No, adequate consideration sufficient to form a valid and enforceable contract may consist of either a right, interest, profit, or benefit accrued to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other. Courts Reasoning: Story incurred a limitation on his legal right to engage in certain activities sufficient to constitute adequate consideration to form a valid and enforceable contract with his uncle. Adequate consideration sufficient to form a valid and enforceable contract may consist of either a right, interest, profit, or benefit accrued to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other. It does not matter whether one party actually received a benefit or whether the thing which forms the consideration is of any substantial value to
either party. Adequate consideration does not depend so much on a
promisors benefit from a contract as it does on the promisees voluntary limitation of his legal rights or freedoms in exchange for the promise. In exchange for his uncles promise of $5,000, Story voluntarily restricted his legal freedom to engage in drinking, smoking, swearing, and gambling. It is irrelevant whether his uncle actually received any benefit from Storys actions. Storys voluntary agreement to incur these limitations constitutes adequate consideration to form a valid and enforceable contract with his uncle. Judgment and Order: The decision of the appellate court is reversed, and the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
R.C. Hilton Associates, Inc. v. Stan Musial and Biggie's Inc., Suncoast International Inns, LTD., Edward J. Stern, Mariemont Investment, E.J. Stern, Inc., 702 F.2d 907, 11th Cir. (1983)