Aller v. Aller
40 N.J.L. 446 (1878)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An intentionally gratuitous promise made in a sealed instrument is legally enforceable, even under a statute that makes a seal only presumptive, rather than conclusive, evidence of sufficient consideration.
Facts:
- Peter H. Aller's wife died, leaving a note for $1000 which he held.
- Aller wished to give the value of the note to his two daughters from that marriage, one of whom was Angeline H. Aller.
- He executed two written, sealed promises, one for each daughter, to pay them a specific sum of money.
- The promise to Angeline H. Aller was for the sum of $312.61.
- Upon giving the sealed instruments to his daughters, Peter H. Aller stated, 'Now here, girls, is a nice present for each of you.'
- The daughters accepted the instruments as gifts.
- Peter H. Aller did not pay the amount promised during his lifetime.
Procedural Posture:
- Angeline H. Aller brought an action in a trial court to enforce the sealed written promise given to her by her father, Peter H. Aller.
- At trial, the defense argued the promise was an unenforceable gift because it lacked legal consideration.
- The trial court found in favor of Angeline H. Aller.
- The defendant sought a rule for a new trial, which is now before this court for decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute, which provides that a seal on an instrument is only presumptive evidence of a sufficient consideration that may be rebutted, render an intentionally gratuitous promise under seal unenforceable for lack of consideration?
Opinions:
Majority - Scudder, J.
No, the statute does not render the promise unenforceable. A voluntary promise made under seal remains a valid and enforceable contract even if evidence shows there was no consideration. The court reasoned that the instrument in question is not a simple promissory note but a specialty contract under seal. Historically, the formality of a seal was intended to make a promise binding by showing deliberation and intent, removing the need for consideration. The court interpreted the recent statute, which allows the presumption of consideration for a seal to be rebutted, as a remedy for cases where consideration was intended by the parties but failed or was fraudulent. It was not intended to abrogate all voluntary contracts or abolish the distinction between simple contracts and specialties. Therefore, where the parties never intended for there to be consideration, but instead intended a gratuitous promise, the lack of consideration is not a valid defense, and the solemnity of the sealed instrument makes the promise enforceable.
Analysis:
This decision preserves a key aspect of common law contract doctrine regarding sealed instruments in the face of modernizing statutes. The court limits the scope of a statute that appears to weaken the power of a seal, clarifying that such laws are meant to prevent fraud where consideration was intended, not to invalidate deliberately gratuitous promises. This maintains the seal's function as a substitute for consideration, allowing parties to make binding, formal promises of future gifts. The ruling prevents the complete assimilation of specialty contracts into the rules governing simple contracts that require consideration.
Unlock the full brief for Aller v. Aller