Allegheny Coll. v. Nat’l Chautauqua Bank New York 1927 1) Facts a) Mary Yates Johnston wrote in her will that she would donate 5,000 upon her death to the college b) The money was to be used to make a memorial fund in her name c) While Mary was still alive she paid the first 1,000 to her the college d) Mary recanted her decision to give the money before her death e) The college after she passed, sued her estate for the remaining money 2) History a) The plaintiffs claim the money was a promise that is enforceable under the charity law b) The trial and appellate court found for the defendant c) Plaintiff appeals that decision 3) Issues a) Was there consideration for the promise i) The college by honoring Mary with her name on the fund was consideration for their part. Had they made the donation anonymous then there would have been no consideration. Because Johnston was making a gift and failed to give consideration then that was her fault and not the colleges. The down payment of the 1000 is a further iteration of her desire to have the scholarship fund. b) Was it a promise or a gift i) The decision to send the money to the school prior to her death created a bilateral contract. The school got the money in exchange for naming the scholarship after her. By sending the money, it created the consideration also for the bilateral contract. ii) “When a thing is to be done by the plaintiff, be it ever so small, this is a sufficient consideration to ground an action.” c) Policy consideration i) Finding for the defendant could undermine charitable donations. 4) Judgment: Reversed Dissent  No offer existed because it was a gift. But, if we strain to view the transaction as an offer then it is an offer for a unilateral, not bilateral contract. However, the acts have not been performed because there was no acceptance in her lifetime. An offer that is revocable dies with the maker. The school never made the fund before her death therefore the offer should have closed out with her death.