Springstead v. Nees
109 N.Y.S. 148 (1908) (1908)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Forbearance from asserting a claim is not valid consideration for a promise if the claim is not even doubtful, colorable, or plausible, meaning there is no honest and reasonable belief that it has some foundation in law or equity.
Facts:
- Mees died intestate, leaving five children: three plaintiffs and the two defendants, Sophia and George.
- Mees owned a property on Sackett street in his own name, which all five children were to inherit as his heirs at law.
- Mees also held title to an Atlantic avenue property via a deed that named him as a trustee for only Sophia and George.
- After Mees's death, the five children gathered and opened his strong box.
- Upon finding the deed for the Atlantic avenue property, the three plaintiff children expressed surprise and dissatisfaction, as they had previously believed their father owned it outright.
- In response to their murmuring, Sophia and George allegedly promised to give the other three their share in the Sackett street property if the plaintiffs would not 'bother' them about the Atlantic avenue property.
- The Sackett street property was subsequently sold.
Procedural Posture:
- The three plaintiff children brought a common-law action against their siblings, Sophia and George, in the trial court.
- The case was tried by the court without a jury by stipulation of the parties.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint with costs.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment to this appellate court.
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 forbearance from asserting a claim that is not doubtful or colorable, and for which there is no reasonable basis for an honest belief in its validity, constitute sufficient consideration to make a promise enforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Jenks, J.
No. Forbearance from asserting a claim does not constitute sufficient consideration where the claim itself is not doubtful, colorable, or plausible. Forbearance is only valid consideration if the underlying claim has some foundation in law or equity. Here, the plaintiffs had no color of right to the Atlantic avenue property, as the deed was clear. Their dissatisfaction and surprise, without any articulated legal theory or threat to assert a claim, did not create a doubtful or colorable claim. The plaintiffs did not suggest the deed was invalid or open to attack. Therefore, their forbearance from asserting a baseless claim was not a legal detriment and could not serve as consideration for the defendants' promise.
Dissenting - Hooker, J.
Yes. The plaintiffs' forbearance did constitute sufficient consideration. The circumstances created at least a colorable claim to the Atlantic avenue property. The deed was found in the deceased grantor's strong box, which raises a legitimate legal doubt as to whether the deed was ever properly delivered before his death—a necessary requirement to transfer title. Because the plaintiffs had a colorable claim based on the potential lack of delivery, their forbearance from pursuing this claim was a sufficient legal detriment to serve as consideration for the defendants' promise, making it an enforceable agreement.
Analysis:
This case refines the contract law doctrine of consideration by clarifying the requirements for forbearance to be valid. It establishes that a promise not to sue or assert a claim only constitutes consideration if the claim has some plausible, good-faith basis. This prevents parties from creating enforceable contracts by forbearing from claims that are frivolous or completely unfounded. The ruling requires courts to conduct a threshold analysis of the forborne claim's legitimacy, not to determine its ultimate success, but to ensure it is at least 'doubtful or colorable' enough to represent a genuine legal detriment.
Unlock the full brief for Springstead v. Nees