| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Infobox Case Brief | | {{Infobox Case Brief |
| |court=Court of Appeals of New York
| |
| |citation=159 N.E. 173
| |
| |date=November 22, 1927
| |
| |subject=Contracts | | |subject=Contracts |
| |appealed_from=New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
| | }} |
| |facts=Defendant promised to donate to plaintiff college, and they relied on her promise.
| | '''Relevant Facts''' |
| | |
|
| |
|
| About 90% of college student receive student loans and grants. Some students receive endowed named scholarships from donors.
| | Defendant promised to donate to plaintiff college and they relied on her promise. |
|
| |
|
| In the 1920s, Allegheny College conducted a fundraising drive.
| |
|
| |
|
| In 1921, Ms. Johnston promised to have $5,000 out of her estate given to [https://allegheny.edu/ Allegheny College] (College) (plaintiff) after her death in order to create the Mary Yates Johnston Memorial Fund. In 1923, she gave $1,000. In spite of this, in 1924, she [[Contracts/Anticipatory repudiation#Repudiation_and_retraction|repudiated]] her promised pledge.
| | '''''' |
|
| |
|
| Upon her death, the executor of Mrs. Johnston, National Chautauqua County Bank of [https://www.jamestownny.net/ Jamestown, New York], ("Chautauqua") didn't pay the balance of the pledged donation.
| |
| |procedural_history=The College sued Chautauqua for the remaining $4,000 ([https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=US%244000+%281927+US+dollars%29 $70,000 in 2023]).
| |
|
| |
|
| Chautauqua won in the trial court.
| | '''Rules''' |
| |issues=May [https://scholarships360.org/scholarships/what-is-an-endowed-scholarship/ endowed named college scholarships] from donors form the basis on an enforceable contract?
| |
|
| |
|
| Does a party's acceptance of a portion of a pledged donation constitute sufficient consideration to enforce the promise to pay the remainder of the donation?
| |
| |holding=A party's acceptance of a portion of a pledged donation constitutes sufficient consideration to enforce the promise to pay the remainder of the donation.
| |
| |reasons=[[Benjamin Cardozo|Cardozo]]: Charitable promises aren't enforceable without consideration. A promise must induce the promisee (the College) to sustain a detriment.
| |
|
| |
|
| Courts have used [[promissory estoppel]] in charitable donation cases. In this case, the NY court didn't need to apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel, though.
| | When a charitable subscription is made, and the charity relies on the promise, a promissory estoppel may result from the assumption of duty to apply the fund as a substitute for consideration. |
| |rule=When a charitable subscription is made, and the charity relies on the promise, a promissory estoppel may result from the assumption of duty to apply the fund as a substitute for [[Contracts/Consideration|consideration]].
| |
| |comments=*''[[Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell]]''
| |
| *''[[King v. Boston University]]''
| |
| |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
| |
| |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/allegheny-college-v-national-chautauqua-county-bank
| |
| |source_type=Video summary
| |
| |case_text_source=Quimbee
| |
| }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
| |
| |link=https://casetext.com/case/allegheny-col-v-nat-chautauqua-co-bank
| |
| |source_type=Summary
| |
| |case_text_source=CaseText
| |
| }}
| |
| }}
| |
