## Facts

- An eight-year-old boy, through his guardian, received a signed promissory note from his aunt promising to pay him $3,000 “at her death or before.”
- The note was prepared on a printed form containing the recital “value received.”
- The aunt expressed affection and stated she wanted to “take care of” the child; she suggested making a note as the method of giving him money.
- The aunt handed the note to the boy and told him not to lose it because it would be valuable someday.
- No money, service, or other bargained-for exchange was given by the boy to the aunt when the note was executed, and the note was not tied to any existing debt.
- After the aunt died, the boy sued the executrix of the aunt’s estate to collect on the note.

## Issues

1. Whether a promissory note reciting “value received” is enforceable when the evidence shows it was given as a gratuitous promise rather than in exchange for consideration.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s proof rebutted any inference of consideration so completely that no question remained for the jury.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order that had reinstated the jury verdict for the plaintiff.
- The court held that the note was an unenforceable promise of an executory gift because it lacked consideration as a matter of law.
- The recital “value received” created, at most, an inference of consideration that was rebutted by the plaintiff’s own evidence showing donative intent.
- The court modified the trial court’s judgment to grant a new trial rather than entering final judgment for the defendant.

## Legal Principles

- Consideration must be actual; a written recital such as “value received” is not conclusive and may be rebutted by evidence showing no exchange occurred.
- A formal promise to make a gift in the future is not enforceable as a contract without bargained-for consideration.
- Past kindness or gratitude (“you have always done for me”) is not consideration when it is not part of a present bargain and does not establish an enforceable contractual obligation.
- When the plaintiff’s own proof establishes the promise was purely gratuitous, the question of consideration may be decided as a matter of law without submission to a jury.

## Conclusion

The court treated the promissory note as a gratuitous, future-looking gift promise: the printed “value received” language could not supply consideration where the evidence showed only affection and donative intent, so the note was not enforceable as a contract.


Dougherty v. Salt, 227 N.Y. 200, 125 N.E. 94 (N.Y. 1919)