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.