## Facts

- John Thomas owned several houses and, by will, left his real property to his brother Samuel Thomas; Samuel and Benjamin Thomas were executors.
- On the night before his death, John expressed a verbal wish (before witnesses) that his wife, Eleanor Thomas, should have a particular house for life, in addition to other provision made for her.
- After John’s death, the executors executed a written agreement with Eleanor stating they would convey the house to her for life (or while she remained a widow).
- The agreement required Eleanor to pay £1 per year toward the ground rent and to keep the house in repair.
- Eleanor took possession and performed by paying the £1 annually and maintaining the property.
- After Samuel’s death, the remaining executor(s) refused to continue the arrangement and pursued ejectment to remove Eleanor.
- Eleanor sued in assumpsit for non-performance of the agreement; the defense denied the promise and asserted lack of consideration.
- A jury found for Eleanor; the defendant sought to set aside the verdict on the ground that there was no legally sufficient consideration.

## Issues

1. Whether Eleanor’s promise to pay £1 yearly and keep the house in repair constituted legally sufficient consideration for the executors’ promise to convey a life interest.
2. Whether the executors’ desire to carry out the deceased’s wishes could serve as consideration, or was only a motive.
3. Whether the written instrument, read as a whole, contained consideration despite recitals referring to the executors’ “desire” to effect John’s wish.

## Decision

- The court upheld the verdict for Eleanor and rejected the challenge to consideration.
- Eleanor’s undertakings to pay £1 per year and keep the premises in repair were valid consideration for the promise to convey the life interest.
- The executors’ respect for John’s wishes was a motive, not consideration, and did not supply (or defeat) the contract’s legal basis.
- Consideration need not be economically adequate; it is enough that it has some value in law and moves from the promisee.
- The agreement was construed as a bargain supported by Eleanor’s obligations rather than a gratuitous, unenforceable gift.

## Legal Principles

- Consideration must be something of value in the eyes of the law moving from the promisee; it may be a benefit or a detriment, but it must be legally recognizable.
- A moral obligation or commendable purpose (including a wish to honor a deceased person’s intentions) is not legal consideration.
- Courts do not measure the adequacy of consideration; nominal or modest consideration can suffice if it is real in law.
- In construing a written agreement, consideration may be identified from the instrument as a whole; a recital of motive does not negate bargained-for obligations stated elsewhere.
- Where the promisee assumes ongoing duties (such as payment obligations and repair/maintenance), the arrangement is contractual rather than a voluntary disposition.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the executors’ promise to convey the house for Eleanor’s life because her obligations to pay £1 yearly and keep the premises in repair were sufficient legal consideration, while the executors’ intention to fulfill John’s wishes was merely a motive and not consideration.


Thomas v. Thomas, 2 Q.B. 851 (Q.B. 1842)