Is a promise to pay money in exchange for abstaining from certain behaviors until reaching a specified age an enforceable contract supported by valid consideration?

On March 20, 1869, William E. Story (uncle) promised his nephew, William E. Story, 2d, a payment of $5,000 if the nephew refrained from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he turned 21. The nephew fully performed his part of the agreement. On January 31, 1875, shortly after his 21st birthday, the nephew wrote to his uncle claiming the $5,000 due. The uncle replied on February 6, 1875, acknowledging the promise and agreeing to pay, but stating he would hold the money until the nephew was capable of managing it. The nephew consented to this arrangement.

On March 1, 1877, the nephew assigned his rights to the $5,000 to his wife, who then assigned them to the plaintiff. The executor of the uncle's estate became the defendant in the subsequent legal action. The case centered on whether the uncle's promise constituted a valid and enforceable contract, and whether the nephew's performance created a legal obligation for payment.

The plaintiff initially prevailed at the trial court level. The defendant then appealed this decision to the General Term. Upon review, the General Term reversed the trial court's ruling in favor of the defendant. Subsequently, the case was further appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, where it is currently pending.

(Per Curiam)

Yes. A promise to pay money in exchange for abstaining from certain behaviors until reaching a specified age is an enforceable contract supported by valid consideration. The forbearance of a legal right constitutes sufficient consideration to support a contract. When an individual refrains from engaging in otherwise permissible activities at the request of another, this abstention represents a legal detriment that satisfies the requirement for consideration. The law does not scrutinize the adequacy of consideration as long as it holds some value. In this case, the nephew's pledge to abstain from tobacco, alcohol, and other specified behaviors until reaching the age of 21 represents a valid form of consideration. This abstention directly benefits the promisor (the uncle) by fulfilling his wishes and potentially promotes the nephew's well-being, which aligns with the uncle's intentions. The creation of a trust relationship, rather than a mere debtor-creditor arrangement, further solidifies the enforceability of the agreement. The uncle's written acknowledgment of the debt and his intention to hold the funds for the nephew's benefit establishes a fiduciary duty. This trust relationship prevents the statute of limitations from barring the claim, as the trustee's obligation to the beneficiary persists. The law recognizes that no specific language is required to create a trust; clear intention suffices. By acknowledging the funds as held for the nephew's benefit, the uncle effectively transformed his role from debtor to trustee, creating an ongoing obligation that supersedes typical contractual time limitations.