Assignment: Prepare a brief for the  Hamer v. Sidway case


Prepare a brief for the 

Hamer v. Sidway case

. (On Page 2)

Use the FIRAC format.

Facts, Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion

The FIRAC method is a 
systematic approach used to summarize legal information




FIRAC stands for Facts, Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion


It is a useful method for organizing the most important material from each case in a way that can be easily understood come exam time


The method helps students to solve legal problem questions by identifying the most important or relevant facts, issue statement, rule, analysis, and conclusion



Note from Professor:

This case has been edited by the professor. If you would like to view the full case, you may do so on Westlaw.

Hamer v. Sidway

27 N.E. 256

Court of Appeals of N.Y. 1891

[Edited for Illustration Purposes]

Appeal from an order of the general term of the supreme court in the fourth judicial department, reversing a judgment entered on the decision of the court at special term in the county clerk’s office of Chemung county on the 1st day of October, 1889. The plaintiff presented a claim to the executor of William E. Story, Sr., for $5,000 and interest from the 6th day of February, 1875. She acquired it through several mesne assignments from William E. Story, 2d. The claim being rejected by the executor, this action was brought.

It appears that William E. Story, Sr., was the uncle of William E. Story, 2d, and at the celebration of the golden wedding of Samuel Story and wife, father and mother of William E. Story, Sr., on the 20th day of March, 1869, in the presence of the family and invited guests, he promised his nephew William E. Story, 2d, that if he would refrain from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he became 21 years of age, he would pay him the sum of $5,000. The nephew assented thereto, and fully performed the conditions inducing the promise. When the nephew arrived at the age of 21 years, and on the 31st day of January, 1875, he wrote to his uncle, informing him that he had performed his part of the agreement, and had thereby become entitled to the sum of $5,000. The uncle received the letter, and a few days later, and on the 6th day of February, he wrote and mailed to his nephew the following letter:

Buffalo, Feb. 6, 1875.

W. E. Story, Jr.–

Dear Nephew:

Your letter of the 31st ult. 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 five thousand dollars, as I promised you. I had the money in the bank the day you was twenty-one years old that I intend for you, and you shall have the money certain. Now, Willie, I do not intend to interfere with this money in any was till 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. The first five thousand dollars that I got together cost me a heap of hard work.

It did not come to me in any mysterious way, and the reason I speak of this is that money got in this way stops longer with a fellow that gets it with hard knocks than it does when he finds it. Willie, you are twenty-one, and you have many a thing to learn yet. 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. I was ten long years getting this together after I was your age. Now, hoping this will be satisfactory, I stop. . .

Truly yours,


P. S. You can consider this money on interest.

The nephew received the letter, and thereafter consented that the money should remain with his uncle in accordance with the terms and conditions of the letter. The uncle died on the 29th day of January, 1887, without having paid over to his nephew any portion of the said $5,000 and interest.

PARKER, J. The question which provoked the most discussion by counsel on this appeal, and which lies at the foundation of plaintiff’s asserted right of recovery, is whether by virtue of a contract defendant’s testator, William E. Story, became indebted to his nephew, William E. Story, 2d, on his twenty-first birthday in the sum of $5,000. The trial court found as a fact that ‘on the 20th day 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 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 fully 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, 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,–a contention which, if well founded, would seem to leave open for controversy in many cases whether that which the promisee did or omitted to do was in fact of such benefit to him as to leave no consideration to support the enforcement of the promisor’s agreement. Such a rule could not be tolerated, and is without foundation in the law. The exchequer chamber in 1875 defined ‘consideration’ as follows: ‘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 any 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.’ Anson, Cont. 63.

‘In general a waiver of any legal right at the request of another party is a sufficient consideration for a promise.’ Pars. Cont.

‘Any damage, or suspension, or forbearance of a right will be sufficient to sustain a promise.’ 2 Kent, Comm. (12th Ed.) Pollock in his work on Contracts, (page 166,) after citing the definition given by the exchequer chamber, already quoted, says: ‘The second branch of this judicial description is really the most important one. ‘Consideration’ means not so much that one party is profiting as that the other abandons some legal right in the present, or limits his legal freedom of action in the future, as an inducement for the promise of the first.’

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 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 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 benefited in a legal sense. Few cases have been found which may be said to be precisely in point, but such as have been, support the position we have taken.

In Shadwell v. Shadwell, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 159, an uncle wrote to his nephew as follows:

My dear Lancey:

I am so glad to hear of your intended marriage with Ellen Nicholl, and, as I promised to assist you at starting, I am happy to tell you that I will pay you 150 pounds yearly during my life and until your annual income derived from your profession of a chancery barrister shall amount to 600 guineas, of which your own admission will be the only evidence that I shall receive or require.

Your affectionate uncle,


It was held that the promise was binding, and made upon good consideration.

In Lakota v. Newton, (an unreported case in the superior court of Worcester, Mass.,) the complaint averred defendant’s promise that ‘if you [meaning the plaintiff] will leave off drinking for a year I will give you $100,’ plaintiff’s assent thereto, performance of the condition by him, and demanded judgment therefor. Defendant demurred, on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff’s declaration did not allege a valid and sufficient consideration for the agreement of the defendant. The demurrer was overruled.

In Talbott v. Stemmons, 12 S. W. Rep. 297,
(a Kentucky case, not yet officially reported,) the step-grandmother of the plaintiff made with him the following agreement: ‘I do promise and bind myself to give my grandson Albert R. Talbott $500 at my death if he will never take another chew of tobacco or smoke another cigar during my life, from this date up to my death; and if he breaks this pledge he is to refund double the amount to his mother.’ The executor of Mrs. Stemmons demurred to the complaint on the ground that the agreement was not based on a sufficient consideration. The demurrer was sustained, and an appeal taken therefrom to the court of appeals, where the decision of the court below was reversed. In the opinion of the court it is said that ‘the right to use and enjoy the use of tobacco was a right that belonged to the plaintiff, and not forbidden by law. The abandonment of its use may have saved him money, or contributed to his health; nevertheless, the surrender of that right caused the promise, and, having the right to contract with reference to the subject matter, the abandonment of the use was a sufficient consideration to uphold the promise.’ Abstinence from the use of intoxicating liquors was held to furnish a good consideration for a promissory note in Lindell v. Rokes, 60 Mo. 249.
The cases cited by the defendant on this question are not in point. . .

Order reversed and judgment of special term affirmed.

This material was reprinted from Westlaw with permission of Thomson Reuters.

Share This Post


Order a Similar Paper and get 15% Discount on your First Order

Related Questions

State of Alabama Unified Judicial System Form JU–12B Rev. 6/13 LEGAL INFORMATION (SOCIAL HISTORY SERIAL) Court Case Number IN THE JUVENILE

State of Alabama Unified Judicial System Form JU–12B Rev. 6/13 LEGAL INFORMATION (SOCIAL HISTORY SERIAL) Court Case Number IN THE JUVENILE COURT OF _________________________________________________ COUNTY, ALABAMA (Name of County) In the Matter of _______________________________________________________________________, a child Part I PRIOR JUVENILE COURT RECORD: Date Offense / Matter Disposition Part II CHILD’S

2/25/24, Law Journal Library – Page 1 of 2 ! � ! � � � 395� � � � � More Like This PathFinder Contents   1329 Cite 0 Likes ! ! 0

2/25/24, Law Journal Library – Page 1 of 2 ! � ✉ ! � � � 395� � � � � More Like This PathFinder Contents   1329 Cite 0 Likes ! ! 0 Comments   BehavioralSciencesandtheLaw Behav.Sci.Law22:395-414(2004) PublishedonlineinWileyInterScience( SerialMurderinAmerica: StudiesofSevenOffenders JamesO.BeasleyII,B.S.,M.P.A.* Thisarticlesummarizesandcompares seveninterviewedserialkilersin designedtostudysimilaritiesand theseindividuals.Theaimofthis ourcollectiveknowledgeofthedynamics byexaminingtheperpetrators’backgrounds, uniQuewaysinwhichtheyviewthemselves

2/25/24, Undergraduate Discussion Rubric – BUS-210-Q3548 Managing/Leading in Business 24EW3 Page 1 of 3 Undergraduate Discussion Rubric Undergraduate

2/25/24, Undergraduate Discussion Rubric – BUS-210-Q3548 Managing/Leading in Business 24EW3 Page 1 of 3 Undergraduate Discussion Rubric Undergraduate Discussion Rubric Overview Your active participation in the discussions is essential to your overall success this term. Discussion questions will help you make meaningful connections between the course content and the larger