## Facts

- After Mary A. Aller died, her husband, Peter H. Aller, located a $1,000 note he had previously given her, credited prior partial payments, and calculated the remaining balance.
- The day after the burial, Peter directed that two new notes be prepared, one to each daughter, for one-half of the remaining balance.
- Peter delivered Angelina H. Aller a written promissory note for $312.61, stating it was “for value received,” payable with interest, and executed “as witness my hand and seal.”
- The instrument also stated it was “given in lieu of one-half of the balance due the estate of Mary A. Aller, deceased,” on the earlier $1,000 note.
- When giving the notes to his daughters, Peter described them as “a nice present,” indicating a donative purpose rather than a bargained exchange.
- The original $1,000 note was later destroyed by the estate administrator.
- Angelina sued on the sealed note; after Peter’s death, his estate stood in his position for purposes of the defense.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may defeat enforcement of a sealed promise to pay money by proving the promise was voluntary and unsupported by ordinary consideration.
2. Whether New Jersey’s statute allowing a sealed instrument to be met with a defense of want of sufficient consideration “as if it were a simple contract” eliminates the traditional legal effect of a seal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey discharged the rule to show cause and left the plaintiff’s verdict intact.
- The court held it was not a good defense to a written promise under seal, reciting “for value received,” that the promise was voluntary.
- The court construed the statutes as changing evidentiary rules regarding consideration for sealed instruments, not as abolishing the legal distinction between specialties and simple contracts.
- The sealed note was enforceable against the father’s estate despite evidence that it was intended as a gift.

## Legal Principles

- A sealed instrument (a specialty) carries legal force distinct from a simple contract; statutory permission to litigate consideration does not, without clearer direction, eliminate that distinction.
- Evidence that a sealed promise was intended as a gratuitous gift does not by itself invalidate the obligation where the promise was intentionally and deliberately made under seal.
- Statutes opening sealed instruments to defenses related to consideration may permit inquiry into consideration, yet still preserve enforceability of deliberate sealed promises even when conventional consideration is absent.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a father’s sealed promissory note to his daughter notwithstanding proof it was a voluntary “present,” holding that statutory permission to contest consideration did not erase the special enforceability traditionally attached to deliberate promises made under seal.


Aller v. Aller, 40 N.J.L. 446 (N.J. 1878)