Facts:

William E. Story, Sr., was the uncle of William E. Story II. On March 20, 1869, in the presence of guests at a party, the elder Story promised to pay his nephew $5,000 if the nephew would refrain from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he reached the age of twenty-one. (Note that in 1869, when this contract offer was made, no New York law existed which prevented 15-year-old males from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and gambling.)

The nephew, who had previously legally engaged in these "vices," agreed to refrain from them and fully performed his part of the bargain. On January 31, 1875, when he reached the age of twenty-one, he wrote to his uncle as follows: "Dear Uncle: I am 21 years old to-day, and I am now my own boss; and I believe, according to agreement, that there is due me $5,000. I have lived up to the contract to the letter in every sense of the word."

Approximately a week later, on February 6, 1875, the uncle sent a reply letter to his nephew that reads in pertinent part as follows: "Dear Nephew: Your letter of the 31stult. came to hand all right, saying that you had lived up to the promise made to me several years ago. I have no doubt but you have, for which you shall have $5,000, as I promised you. I had the money in the bank the day you was 21 years old that I intend for you, and you shall have the money certain. Now, Willie, I don't intend to interfere with this money in any way until I think you are capable of taking care of it, and the sooner that time comes the better it will please me. I would hate very much to have you start out in some adventure that you thought all right, and lose this money in one year. *** This money you have earned much easier than I did, besides acquiring good habits at the same time; and you are quite welcome to the money. Hope you will make good use of it. *** (signed) W.E. STORY., P.S. You can consider this money on interest."

The nephew received his uncle's letter and thereafter consented that the money should remain with his uncle according to the terms and conditions of the letter. Sometime before January 1887, the legal right to receive the money (plus interest) was transferred to Mr. Hamer, the plaintiff in this action.

On January 29, 1887, the uncle died without having paid his nephew any part of the $5,000 and interest. The executor of the uncle's estate (Sidway, the defendant in this action) claimed that there had been no valid consideration for the uncle's promise and therefore refused to pay the $5,000 (plus interest) to Hamer. Hamer sued to enforce the contract. The trial court ruled in favor of Sidway; Hamer appealed. The Court of Appeals of New York, Second Division, reviewed the case to determine whether the nephew had given valid consideration under the law.

Court's Opinion:

Parker, J. (Judge)

****

The question *** on this appeal *** is whether by virtue of a contract *** William E. Story, became indebted to his nephew, William E. Story 2d, on his twenty-first birthday in the sum of $5,000. The trail court found as a fact that on the 20thday 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 he 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 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 (the nephew Story), by refraining from the use of liquor and tobacco, was not harmed, but benefitted; 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 benefitted, the contract was without consideration, ***.

Such a rule could not be tolerated, and is without foundation in the law.

***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 will not ask whether the thing which forms the consideration does in fact benefit the promisee or a third party, or is of substantial value to anyone. It is enough that something is promised, done, forborne, or suffered by the party to whom the promise is made as consideration for the promise made to him.In general a waiver of any legal right at the request of another party is a sufficient consideration for a promise. Any damage, or suspension, or forbearance of a right will be sufficient to sustain a promise.

*** 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 (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 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 benefitted in a legal sense. *** (Emphasis added.)

Decision and Remedy:

The Court of Appeals of New York, Second Division, ruled that William Story II, the nephew, had provided legally sufficient consideration by giving up smoking, drinking, swearing and gambling until he reached the age of twenty-one. So, there was a valid K and he (actually Hamer, the transferee) was therefore entitled to the money.

Question:

Suppose that, in 1869, William Story II, the nephew, did not have a legal right to engage in the behavior that he agreed to forgo. Would the result in this case have been different? Why? Fully explain the reasoning for your conclusion.