I. & I. Holding Corp. v. Gainsburg
12 N.E.2d 532, 276 N.Y. 427, 115 A.L.R. 582 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A complaint alleging a charitable hospital acted in reliance on a subscriber's pledge by proceeding with its humanitarian work, securing other subscriptions, expending money, and incurring liabilities, states sufficient facts to establish legal consideration for the pledge as an offer for a unilateral contract, making it enforceable. Furthermore, such an agreement, made payable 'to the order of' the hospital, is generally assignable.
Facts:
- Gainsburg signed and delivered a pledge agreement to Beth Israel Hospital Association, promising to pay $5,000 in four annual installments.
- The pledge stated its purpose was 'To aid and assist the Beth Israel Hospital Association in its humanitarian work, and in consideration of the promises of others contributing for the same purposes.'
- The pledge also explicitly requested 'each and every other contributor to make his contribution in reliance upon the contribution of the undersigned herewith made.'
- The pledge was made payable 'to the order of the Beth Israel Hospital Association.'
- After the pledge was made, the Beth Israel Hospital Association proceeded in its humanitarian work, obtained other similar subscriptions, expended large sums of money, and incurred large liabilities.
- The Beth Israel Hospital Association subsequently assigned the pledge agreement to I. & I. Holding Corp.
Procedural Posture:
- I. & I. Holding Corp. (respondent) sued Gainsburg (appellant) in Special Term (trial court) to enforce the pledge agreement.
- The Special Term dismissed the complaint, ruling that the allegations of consideration were insufficient.
- The Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court) reversed the Special Term's judgment, finding the allegation of consideration sufficient and striking out Gainsburg's fifth affirmative defense, which claimed the pledge was unassignable.
- Gainsburg appealed to the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court) on two certified questions: 1) whether the complaint stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and 2) whether the fifth defense was sufficient.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a complaint alleging that a charitable hospital proceeded in its humanitarian work, obtained other subscriptions, expended money, and incurred liabilities in reliance on a subscriber's pledge, state sufficient facts to establish legal consideration for that pledge, making it enforceable? 2. Is a charitable subscription agreement, made payable 'to the order of' the hospital, legally assignable?
Opinions:
Majority - Hubbs, J.
Yes, the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because the allegations are broad enough to permit proof that the hospital, relying on the subscription agreement to aid its humanitarian work, altered its position by incurring liability and expending funds, thus establishing consideration for the promise. No, the fifth defense (regarding unassignability) does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense, as the agreement was made 'to the order of' the hospital and there are no statutory or public policy restrictions against its assignability. The court affirmed that while the explicitly stated consideration in the pledge (promises of others) is not valid, an implied request for the hospital to continue its humanitarian work can be inferred from the agreement's purpose ('to aid and assist'). When the hospital acts upon this implied offer by incurring liabilities or expending funds, the unilateral contract becomes binding and enforceable. This principle is deeply embedded in New York law, having been 'firmly established' over a long period. The court cited precedents like Matter of Taylor and Keuka College v. Ray and referenced Restatement of Contracts § 45, which states that an offer for a unilateral contract becomes binding when part of the requested consideration is performed. The court found it unnecessary to rely solely on the doctrine of promissory estoppel when an implied request can be found. Regarding assignability, the court determined that a promise payable 'to the order of' a party, without any specific statutory or public policy restriction, is freely assignable under Personal Property Law § 41, citing Rosenthal Paper Co. v. National Folding B. & P. Co.
Dissenting - Lehman, J.
No, the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because it fails to allege that the hospital's actions (expending money, incurring liabilities) were specifically induced by a request from the promisor or constituted an acceptance of an offer for a unilateral contract, rather than merely continuing its general charitable work. The dissent argued that charitable subscriptions require either consideration or inducement for the charity to perform an act it otherwise would not have. While acknowledging that the doctrine of consideration is applied with less rigor to charitable subscriptions, the dissent insisted that the complaint must still allege that the hospital's actions were taken because the defendant requested them or that the hospital altered its position in reasonable belief the promise would be kept. The complaint's general allegation that the hospital 'proceeded in its humanitarian work, obtained other like subscriptions, expended large sums of money and incurred large liabilities' is insufficient. It is merely a statement of the hospital continuing its routine operations, not an allegation that these actions were an acceptance of a specific offer or a detriment incurred in direct reliance on the promisor's request. The dissent emphasized that a complaint must allege the ultimate fact of a binding agreement, not just evidentiary facts from which an inference might be drawn.
Analysis:
This case significantly solidifies New York's stance on the enforceability of charitable pledges by emphasizing a liberal interpretation of consideration through the unilateral contract theory. It demonstrates the court's willingness to infer an 'implied request' for action from the charitable purpose stated in a pledge, thereby easing the burden on charities to prove explicit contractual terms. The ruling provides a strong legal foundation for charities to rely on pledges, knowing that expenditures and liabilities incurred in furtherance of their mission can validate these promises. Furthermore, it clarifies that such pledges, if made 'to the order of' the charity, are assignable, providing greater flexibility for financial management.
