lack Letter
KNew York Court of Appeals, 1891draftborradorunverifiedsin verificar

Hamer v. Sidway

124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (1891)

An uncle's $5,000 for a nephew who gave up drinking, smoking and swearing

In one lineEn una línea
Forbearance from a lawful activity at the promisor's request is consideration, whether or not it benefits the promisor or harms the promisee.Abstenerse de una actividad lícita a petición del promitente es consideration, beneficie o no al promitente o dañe o no al promisario.
RuleRegla
Consideration may consist of a right, interest, profit or benefit to one party, or a forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility undertaken by the other; a promisee who gives up a legal right in exchange for a promise supplies consideration regardless of whether the promisor gained anything.
Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso
The first consideration case (Sept. 24, casebook pp. 69–73): consideration is a bargained-for detriment to the promisee, and giving up a legal right is a detriment even if it benefits the promisee and brings the promisor nothing. It kills the idea that consideration must be a benefit to the promisor.
Procedural posturePostura procesal
The assignee of the nephew's claim sued the uncle's estate; the trial court found for the claimant, the General Term reversed, and the Court of Appeals reinstated the judgment for the claimant.

Facts

At a family celebration, William Story promised his nephew, William Story 2d, that if the nephew refrained from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing and playing cards or billiards for money until he turned twenty-one, the uncle would pay him $5,000. The nephew complied. After he came of age he wrote to the uncle, who replied that the money was his but that the uncle would hold it for him at interest. The uncle died without paying. The nephew’s rights passed by assignment to Hamer, who sued the executor, Sidway.

Procedural posture

Judgment for the claimant at trial; reversed at the General Term; the Court of Appeals reversed that and affirmed the trial judgment.

Issue

Whether the nephew’s abstention was consideration for the uncle’s promise, given that abstaining benefited the nephew and cost the uncle nothing.

Holding

Yes. The nephew had a legal right to drink and smoke; abandoning that right at the uncle’s request was a detriment that supplied consideration, and the uncle’s promise was enforceable.

Reasoning

The court adopted the classic definition of consideration as a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee, and refused to inquire whether the forbearance actually benefited the nephew. The promise induced the forbearance and the forbearance was the price of the promise. The court also dealt with the statute of limitations by treating the uncle’s letter as creating a trust of the money.

Rule (own words)

Giving up something you were free to do, because someone promised to pay you for it, is consideration. The court does not ask whether the deal was wise for you.

What-ifs

  • The uncle promised the money if the nephew would stop using heroin: no consideration, because the nephew had no legal right to do it (no detriment).
  • The uncle promised $5,000 as a gift at the party and the nephew later abstained on his own: no bargain, so no consideration (compare Kirksey).
  • The nephew abstained but the uncle had died before any promise reached him: no promise, no claim.

Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables

The estate argued the nephew was better off for abstaining. Why did that not matter?
Because the test is whether the promisee gave up something he was legally free to do, in exchange for the promise; the court does not weigh whether the sacrifice was good for him.
Was there a bargain?
Yes: the uncle asked for the abstinence as the price of the $5,000, and the nephew abstained because of the promise. That exchange is what distinguishes it from a gift conditioned on conduct (Kirksey).
Mexican comparison?
Mexican law needs no consideration; a promise with consent and object is enforceable (CCF art. 1794). The nephew's claim would be a simple donation or a promesa, with form requirements instead.
considerationforbearance as considerationbargain theory of consideration

Compare withComparar con: Kirksey v. Kirksey (contrasts)

AssignedAsignado: 2026-09-24

Read the public opinionLeer la opinión (texto público). SourceFuente: Own brief from the public opinion as excerpted in the casebook; verify quotations against the opinion..