
    LOUISIANA COLLEGE vs. KELLER.
    Eastern Dist.
    June, 1836.
    APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, THE ^TUDGE THEREOF PRESIDING.
    Tiie defendant subscribed five hundred dollars to a paper, in which he promised to pay this sum to any person who might be appointed to receive the same, on behalf of a college, to be established at Jackson, in Louisiana, on the express condition that the college should be established at the next session of the legislature; the legislature, at its next session, fiid establish and endow a college: Held, that the defendant was bound "by his engagement to pay the,sum subscribed by him.
    An obligation is not the less binding, although the consideration or cause is not expressed in tile instrument.
    The expectation of deriving advantage from the establishment of a college .or literary institution near one’s residence, or the desire to promote education and become the patron of letters, and such like, when the object is lawful, form a valid consideration to render a contract for the payment of a sum of money, binding.
    In contracts of beneficence, the intention to confer a benefit is a sufficient consideration.
    This is an action instituted by the trustees of the Louisiana college, .established at Jackson, in East Feliciana, to recover from the defendant the sum of five hundred dollars, .the amount of his subscription to said eollege.
    The action is brought on the following instrument of writing:
    “We, the subscribers,'agree and bind ourselves to pay the sums severally annexed to our names, to. any person or persons who may be appointed by the legislature of the state of Louisiana to receive the same, in behalf of a college, which may be established in the town of Jackson, East Feli-ciana. It is, however, expressly understoqd, that no obligation is hereby created against the ..subscribers, unless the said legislature do establish a college with an endowment, in the said town, at their next session. And, if a college be established, as aforesaid, we waive all informality in this obligation; those who subscribe two hundred dollars, or under, to pay in equal instalments of one and two years; those who subscribe over two hundred dollars, to pay the amount of their subscriptions in annual instalments of one hundred dollars, subsequent to the passage of a bill relative to said institution.” “Jackson, 6th September, 1824.”
    “ Mames. Place of Residence. Donation'.”
    
    “ H. Keller, Jackson, Five hundred dollars.”
    The above paper was signed by many other subscribers.
    On the 18th February, 1825, and at the next session after the defendant subscribed the said subscription paper, the legislature passed a law “To incorporate the College of Louisiana, and fop other purposes,” which located the college at the town of Jackson, in the parish of East Feliciana.
    The defendant having failed and refused to pay his said subscription, on the 18th March, 1831, a formal demand was made on him, and a protest entered on the instrument by the parish judge, acting as a notary public, for non-payment thereof.
    The defendant pleaded a general denial; that he was not bound by said instrument of writing, which is a nudempactum, given without consideration; and further, that the plaintiffs were not authorized to collect and demand payment of said money. He further pleaded the prescription of five years, and that the action on said writing is prescribed by the lapse of five years.
    The district judge, on these pleadings and issues, gave .judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed.
    
      Downs for the plaintiff.
    The obligation of the defendant was subject to only one condition, and that was accomplished by the act incorporating the college of Louisiana, and the actual establishment of the same at Jacksou. The obligation 0f defendant then became absolute.
    The defendant subscribed five hundred dollars to a paper, in which he promised to pay this sum to any persons who might be appointed to receive the same, on behalf of a college to be established at JT ackson, in. Louisiana, on the express condition that the college should be established at the next session of the legislature ; the legislature at its next session did establish and endow a college : Held, that the defendant was bound by his engagement to pay the sum subscribed by him.
    An obligation is not the less binding, although the consideration or cause is not ex-Kstnimenu ^
    
      
      Boyle, for defendant.
    1. The agreement of the appellant, upon which judgment was given in the court below, was an imperfect obligation, which could not be enforced in a court of justice.
    
      2. It was without legal and sufficient consideration to render it valid and binding.
    3. It did not become binding on the maker, for want of an acceptance of its conditions by the party to whom it was made. 1 Louisiana Reports, 190.
    4. There was no party in existence capable of accepting or enforcing its conditions.
   Bullard, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit is brought to recover of the defendant a sum of five hundred dollars, which he promised to pay to any person or persons who might be appointed by the legislature of the state of Louisiana to receive the same, on behalf of a college which may be established in the town of Jackson, in East Feliciana. This engagement, which was subscribed by the defendant, in common with various other citizens, for different amounts, was on the express condition that the legislature should establish and endow a college at Jackson, at its next session.

The defendant, in his answers, admits that he signed the paper, as alleged, but he denies all the other allegations set forth in the petition. He denies that the plaintiffs are authorized to collect, demand or receive the amount, and avers that there is no valid and binding contract, and that his promise was without consideration and void.

The legislature did establish and endow a college at Jackson, at the session next succeeding the date of the subscription. The plaintiffs were constituted a body corporate by that act, and authorized to administer the affairs of the college, and to appoint a treasurer; and although not expressly empowered to collect the subscription in question, yet we have no doubt the intention of the subscribers was to aid in the establishment of such a college, by adding the amount of their subscriptions to such sum as the legislature might grant for that purpose.

The expeeta-iXantage^íVom ü>e lege or literary one’s^-eskience^ p^o^education and Recome ters^and °such o^tTs'te-wfuf form a valid con-render a contract sumof’moí ney binding,

iJeneficenceCttbe intention to confer a benefit, is sufficient consideration,

But the defendant seeks to avoid the payment of the sum subscribed by him, under the plea that his promise was without consideration and is not binding on him. An obligation, according to the Code is not the less binding though its consideration or cause is not expressed. We are not informed as to the consideration of this promise, by any thing on the face of the papers. It may have been 'the advantage the defendant expected to derive from the establishment of a college at his own door, by which he would save great expense in the education of his children, or it may have been a spirit of liberality and a desire to be distinguished as the patron of letters. Whatever it may have been, we see nothing illicit in it; nothing forbidden by law, and the promise binds him, if he consented freely, and the contract had a lawful object. In contracts of beneficence, the intention to confer a benefit is a sufficient consideration,

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.  