HAMER v. SIDWAY
Facts:
Louisa Hamer, (Plaintiff) took Franklin Sidway, the executor of the estate of William E. Story I, (Defendant), to court for the sum of $5,000. On March 20, 1869, William E. Story I had promised his nephew, William E. Story 2d, $5,000 which would also accrue interest if his nephew stopped drinking alcohol, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until the he reached 21 years of age. Story 2d accepted the promise and followed through on his end 21. After celebrating his 21st birthday, Story 2d wrote to his uncle and requested the $5,000. The uncle responded to his nephew in a letter in which he told his nephew that he would fulfill his promise. Story also stated that he would prefer to wait until his nephew was older before actually handing over the large sum of money. The younger Story consented to his uncle's wishes and agreed that the money would remain with his uncle until Story 2d became older. William E. Story I died on January 29, 1887 without having transferred any of the money owed to his nephew. Story2d had meanwhile transferred the $5,000 financial interest to his wife; Story 2d's wife had later transferred this financial interest to Louisa Hamer on assignment. The elder Story's estate refused to grant Hamer the money, believing there was no binding contract due to a lack of consideration. As a result, Hamer sued the estate's executor, Franklin Sidway. Judgment for the Defendant, and the Plaintiff appealed.
Issues:
Was the contract without consideration to support it, invalid?
Rules:
The court stated that consideration may consist in either a some right, interest, profit, or benefit to one party. Refraining from something that one is entitled to do is a sufficient detriment to create an enforceable contract.
Holdings:
Judgment was reversed. The court found that it is sufficient that 2d restricted his