Editing Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Court of Appeals of New York
|citation=159 N.E. 173
|date=November 22, 1927
|subject=Contracts
|appealed_from=New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
|facts=Defendant promised to donate to plaintiff college, and they relied on her promise.

About 90% of college student receive student loans and grants. Some students receive endowed named scholarships from donors.

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 [[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.
|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.
|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
}}
}}