HAMER v. SIDWAY COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK 124 N.Y. 538 (1891) Plaintiff sought to enforce against

HAMER v. SIDWAY COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK 124 N.Y. 538 (1891) Plaintiff sought to enforce against the defendant estate a promise made by his now-deceased uncle to pay Plaintiff a sum of money if Plaintiff refrained from the use of alcohol and tobacco for a period of years. Plaintiff so refrained and sought recovery of the sum promised. J. PARKER_In 1869, William Story, 2d, promised his nephew that if he refrained from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he was 21 years of age, then he would pay him the sum of $5,000. William Story,
HAMER v. SIDWAY COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK 124 N.Y. 538 (1891) Plaintiff sought to enforce against the defendant estate a promise made by his now-deceased uncle to pay Plaintiff a sum of money if Plaintiff refrained from the use of alcohol and tobacco for a period of years. Plaintiff so refrained and sought recovery of the sum promised. J. PARKER_In 1869, William Story, 2d, promised his nephew that if he refrained from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he was 21 years of age, then he would pay him the sum of $5,000. William Story, the nephew, agreed and fully performed. The defendant (the deceased uncles estate) now contends that the contract was without consideration to support it, and, therefore, invalid. He asserts that the nephew, 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 uncles promise, and insists that it follows that unless the nephew was benefited, the contract was without consideration. This contention, 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 promisors agreement. Such a rule could not be tolerated, and is without foundation in the law. Consideration means not so much that one party is profiting as that the other abandons some legal right in the present or limits his legal freedom of action in the future. 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. He abandoned that right for a period of years based upon the promise of his uncle 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 uncles agreement. Now, having fully performed the conditions imposed, it makes no difference whether such performance was actually a benefit to the promisor, and the court will not inquire into it. Even if it were 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. It is deemed established for the purposes of this appeal, that on January 31, 1875, defendants testator was indebted to William E. Story, 2d, in the sum of $5,000. All concur. CRITICAL THINKING What difference would it have made in this case had the nephew not had the legal right to drink or smoke? Why is this question crucial to the decision? ETHICAL DECISION MAKING William Story, 2d, may well have thought that he should win the case on moral grounds. He is applauding his nephews behavior in recognition that the behavior the nephew stopped was behavior that was harming his nephew. So, since his nephew is now in better condition than he was before their exchange of views, why does the court put itself in the position of requiring William Story, 2d, to pay the $5,000?