Brief of Hamer v. Sidway
(Court of Appeals of New York, 1891)

The claim at issue (brought by an assignee) was against the estate of an uncle and was based on a promise made by the uncle to his nephew, when the nephew was fifteen years of age, that the uncle would pay the nephew $5,000 if the nephew would refrain from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until the nephew reached the age of twenty-one. The nephew assented to the promise, which was made at a family gathering to celebrate the golden wedding anniversary of the uncle's parents.

When the nephew reached the age of twenty-one, the uncle affirmed the promise and said that the money was being held in a bank at interest for the nephew until such time as the nephew was mature enough to handle such a sum of money responsibly. The nephew consented to this arrangement.

Upon the death of the uncle, the executor of his estate refused to pay the claim, asserting that the uncle's promise was unenforceable for lack of consideration.

Was the uncle's promise supported by consideration?

The court reversed the judgment of the lower appellate court and affirmed that of the trial court, holding that the promise was enforceable and that the nephew gave good consideration for it.

Consideration may take the form either of some return benefit being received by the person making the promise (the promisor) or some detriment, forbearance, or loss being suffered by the person to whom the promise is made (the promisee). The nephew suffered a detriment by restricting his lawful freedom as requested by his uncle. This forbearance, regardless how slight, constituted a good and valuable consideration for the uncle's promise.