Story Case

At the request of the New York Belgian Relief Committee Edward Early signed the following note:

"$50. January 15, 1915.

I, Edward Early, promise to pay to the New York Belgian Relief Committee, or its order, fifty dollars, on the first of each month, for three months, to aid the European war sufferers.

(Signed) Edward Early." Early died on February 2, 1915, and his administrator, Henry Osterhage, refused to pay the note, contending it was not given for a valuable consideration. Is this correct?

Ruling Court Case. John Hamor Vs. Moore's Administrator, Volume 8 Ohio State Reports, Page 239

The defendant's intestate, Moore, was an aged man and a widower. He resided upon his farm near to the farm and residence of the plaintiff, Hamor and his wife. The old man was a frequent visitor at Hamor's home, as often, perhaps, as twice a week. He enjoyed much the same freedom and familiarity as a member of the family, and was always received with cordial kindness and hospitality. When present, he always had a seat at the table, and, in preparation of food, the plaintiff's wife took pains to consult and gratify his tastes and appetites. She also sent cakes and other delicacies to the old man at his residence. In harvest time, he frequently received liquor from Hamor for himself and his harvest hands. Shortly before his death Moore made, and delivered, the following note to Mrs. Hamor: "$300.

For value received I promise to pay to Mrs. Hamor, wife of John Hamor, the sum of three hundred dollars, as a small recompense for the kindness shown to me by her. (Signed) John Moore." After his death, the administrator of Moore's estate refused to pay this note. This suit was brought against him. It was contended by the administrator that the note could not be enforced because it was not supported by a valuable consideration.

Decision: The consideration necessary to a negotiable instrument, where consideration is necessary, as, for instance, between the immediate parties, must be valuable, and not merely good. When the wife of Hamor rendered the kindnesses to the deceased, she expected no compensation. Such kindness thereafter does not constitute a valuable consideration, which is necessary to support a negotiable instrument.

Mr. Justice Brinkerhoff said: "The generous kindness and hospitality displayed by Mr. Hamor and wife toward the deceased were, doubtless, truly commendable, and laid a just foundation for the gratitude which he manifested; and it may be a matter of regret that his gratitude should be baffled by legal objection. It seems now to be the settled doctrine of the courts that a mere gratuity, which, without special promise to pay, is not a sufficient consideration to support an express promise to pay; or, in other words, a mere moral obligation, where a legal obligation never existed, is not a sufficient consideration for an express promise." Judgment was given for Moore's administrator.

Exiling Law Story Case Answer

It has just been stated that there must be a valuable consideration for a negotiable instrument in order that it may be binding as between the immediate parties thereto. Now a valuable consideration, from a legal viewpoint, may not always coincide with that which is classed as merely good consideration. Love and affection for one person by another are classed as a good consideration, but they are not sufficient to support a simple contract; and, as between the parties, they do not constitute value necessary to render binding a negotiable instrument. The performance of services, for which no compensation was expected at the time, may constitute a good consideration, but is not a valuable consideration and will not support a valid negotiable instrument by means of which compensation is subsequently promised for such services.

Early, in the Story Case, considered that he was under moral obligation to aid the European "War sufferers and, no doubt, for this reason gave the note. The motive was commendable, but not sufficient to support the note, and his administrator need not pay.