Rundle v. Hayward

I concur for affirmance, but on somewhat different grounds than those stated by the court below.

I think the case differs from Frankenberger v. Schneller (258 N. Y. 270). In that case there was no direct proof of the offer; here there is direct proof. I think the contract Was in fine with the case of Hamer v. Sidway (124 N. Y. 538) where the uncle agreed with his nephew that if he would refrain from certain wordly practices until he became twenty-one years of age he would pay him $5,000. This was held enforcible. (See, also, L’Amoreaux v. Gould, 7 N. Y. 349; Miller v. McKenzie, 95 id. 575.)

I…