Hamer v. Sidway decision

"The Court of Appeals reversed and directed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed, with costs payable out of the estate.
Judge Parker, writing for a unanimous court, wrote that the forbearance of legal rights by Story II, namely consensual abstinence from 'drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he turned 21 years of age' constituted consideration in exchange for the promise given by Story I. Because the forbearance was valid consideration by a party (Story II) in exchange for a promise to perform by another party (Story I), the promisee was contractually obligated to fulfill the promise.
Parker cited the Exchequer Chamber's 1875 definition of consideration: '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.'
The executor of Story I's estate, Sidway, was therefore legally bound to deliver the promised $5,000 to whoever currently held the interest in the sum, which by the time of the trial was Hamer."
found on wikipedia