ABSTRACT
In this case, William Storey Senior agreed to pay his nephew $5,000 if the nephew would agree to refrain from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he should reach the age of 21. The question arose as to the validity of this promise, it being alleged by the promisor that there was no consideration to support it. The nephew won the case:
Hamer v Sidway (1891) 124 NY 538, Court of Appeals, New York Parker J: The defendant ... asserts that the promisee 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 uncle’s promise – and insists that it follows that, unless the promisor was benefited, the contract was without consideration ... 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 on the strength of the promise of the testator 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 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 benefited in a legal sense.
