New Jersey Hospital v. Wright

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey · 1921 · Contracts

ContractsCharitable subscriptionsConsiderationcharitable subscriptionconsiderationacceptancespecific application of fundsnaming rights

Facts

Mrs. Jessie R. Barr expressed interest in contributing to the hospital's campaign to enlarge and improve its building and asked committee members to call on her when the campaign began. When they later met with her, she said she would give $5,000 to build an operating room, but the solicitors told her that another donor, Mr. Graves, had already asked for that privilege. Mrs. Barr requested that the solicitors obtain Mr. Graves's waiver so the operating room could be funded by her gift and bear a name she suggested; they obtained the waiver, returned to her, informed her that the subscription would be so used, and she then authorized one of them to sign the subscription card as "A Friend." The committee later mailed her a formal acknowledgment, and after her death the hospital sued to enforce the pledge.

Issue

Was there sufficient evidence of legal consideration to require submission to the jury of the enforceability of Mrs. Barr's charitable subscription? Also, was there evidence from which the jury could find that the campaign committee accepted the subscription?

Rule

A charitable subscription is enforceable at law if supported by legal consideration, and consideration may consist of either a benefit to the promisor or an inconvenience or loss to the promisee. In this setting, consideration may be found where the promise is made in exchange for a specific application of the funds, naming of the funded facility as requested, or the promisee's performance of a stipulated act requested by the subscriber, such as securing another person's waiver.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a capital campaign in Newark, Elena Torres told volunteers for Harbor View Children's Center that she would pledge $25,000 if the money were reserved to equip a neonatal therapy room rather than used for the campaign generally. The volunteers agreed to that restriction and sent her a written acknowledgment stating the funds would be applied to that room.

If Elena dies before paying, which is the strongest argument that her estate remains liable on the pledge?

Explanation. The majority opinion states that a charitable subscription can be supported by legal consideration where the promise is made in exchange for a specific application of the funds requested by the subscriber. Consideration may consist of a detriment or inconvenience to the promisee, and adequacy is not ordinarily examined. Thus the agreed earmarking of Elena's pledge for a particular room is evidence from which a jury could find consideration. (Derived from New Jersey Hospital v. Wright (n.d.).)