De Cicco v. Schweizer

Last updated
De Cicco v. Schweizer
Seal of the New York Court of Appeals.svg
Court New York Court of Appeals
Full case nameAttilio De Cicco v. Joseph Schweizer et al.
ArguedOctober 15, 1917
DecidedNovember 13, 1917 (1917-11-13)
Citation(s)117 N.E. 807, 221 N.Y. 431, L.R.A. 1918E 1004, Ann. Cas. 1918C 816
Case history
Procedural historyJudgment for plaintiff (Sup. Ct.), affirmed as modified, De Cicco v. Schweizer, 152 N.Y.S. 1106 (App. Div. 1915) (memorandum opinion)
Related action(s)Order denying defendant's motion (Sup. Ct.), reversed, De Cicco v. Schweizer, 163 N.Y.S. 823 (App. Div. 1917)
Court membership
Chief judge Frank H. Hiscock
Associate judges Andrews, Cardozo, Collin, Crane, Cuddeback, Pound
Case opinions
MajorityCardozo, joined by Hiscock, Cuddeback, Pound, Andrews
ConcurrenceCrane
Collin took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

De Cicco v. Schweizer, [lower-alpha 1] 117 N.E. 807 (N.Y. 1917), is a notable contract law case concerning privity of contract and consideration. The case examined whether there was consideration in a contract where person A makes a promise to person B, and in exchange person B promises to perform a previous contract obligation to person C. Additionally, the case looked at the general class of prenuptial agreements. [1]

Contents

Factual background

On January 20, 1902, Count Oberto Gulinelli [lower-alpha 2] of Italy married Blanche Schweizer, of Lincoln Square, Manhattan. Joseph and Ernestine Teresa Schweizer, Blanche's parents, had signed documents providing a substantial dowry to the betrothed. The Schweizers were to pay $2,500 every January 20 for the rest of their lives, and leave half their estate—estimated at well over $1M in 1912—to the pair. For ten years, the Schweizers paid on time, but payments ceased in 1912. Gulinelli assigned the $2,500 payment to one Attilio De Cicco, who brought suit in New York to recover the payment. [2]

According to testimony at trial, the Gulinellis may have sought to separate in 1911. Blanche came to New York, where she asked for and received money from her father, which he later argued was an advance on the 1912 allowance. [3]

Procedural background

The plaintiff filed suit in the summer of 1913, naming both Joseph and Ernestine Schweizer as defendants, and requesting damages in the amount of $2500. Trial was held in the Supreme Court in Manhattan in January 1914, under Justice Erlanger. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff in the amount of $99.70. Both parties submitted motions for a new trial, which were denied. Both parties then appealed.

The Appellate Division rendered judgment on January 22, 1915. Presiding was Justice Ingraham, with Justices McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Laughlin present. Ruling unanimously, the court modified the award of the trial court, awarding the plaintiff $2,500, with interest and costs for a total of $3,030.77. Joseph Schweizer appealed from this judgment.

Judgment

The court unanimously affirmed the Appellate Division. In a majority opinion by Judge Cardozo, the court held that there was a sufficient consideration for the promise; that although the promise was to the husband it was intended for the benefit of the daughter, and when it came to her knowledge she had a right to adopt and enforce it, and in doing so she made herself a party to the contract.

Notes

  1. Some sources render the litigants' names as "DeCicco", "Di Cicco" or "Schweitzer". This article uses the rendering from the case reporters except where it is rendered differently in source titles and quotations.
  2. Count Gulinelli's full name was Oberto Giacomo Giovanni Francesco Maria Gulinelli. Some sources state his name as "Gianoberto Gulinelli" or "Alberto Gulinelli", or spell his surname "Gullinelli".

Related Research Articles

In law, a judgment, also spelled judgement, is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.

Estoppel Preventive judicial device in common law

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. It is also a concept in international law.

A quasi-contract is a fictional contract recognised by a court. The notion of a quasi-contract can be traced to Roman law and is still a concept used in some modern legal systems. Quasi Contract laws have got deduced from the Latin statement “Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura”, which proclaims that no man should grow rich out of another person’s loss. It was one of the central doctrines of Roman law. The word Quasi means having some similarities but not entirely. Similarly, such a Contract means laws like ordinary contract law but not totally.

Da Afghanistan Bank Central bank of Afghanistan

Da Afghanistan Bank is the central bank of Afghanistan. It regulates all banking and money handling operations in Afghanistan. The bank currently has 46 branches throughout the country, with five of these situated in Kabul, where the headquarters is also based.

Privity of contract Legal Principle

The doctrine of privity of contract is a common law principle which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract.

<i>Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd</i> Legal doctrines of promissory estoppel

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 is a famous English contract law decision in the High Court. It reaffirmed and extended the doctrine of promissory estoppel in contract law in England and Wales. However, the most significant part of the judgment is obiter dicta as it relates to hypothetical facts; that is, the landlord did not seek repayment of the full wartime rent.

Gott v. Berea College, 161 S.W. 204, was a case heard before the Kentucky Court of Appeals wherein a restaurant owner sued a college when the college issued a new policy forbidding students from patronizing establishments not owned by the college.

<i>Foakes v Beer</i>

Foakes v Beer[1884] UKHL 1 is an English contract law case, which applied the controversial pre-existing duty rule in the context of part payments of debts. It is a leading case from the House of Lords on the legal concept of consideration. It established the rule that prevents parties from discharging an obligation by part performance, affirming Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a. In that case it was said that "payment of a lesser sum on the day [i.e., on or after the due date of a money debt] cannot be any satisfaction of the whole."

<i>Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital</i>

Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, was a decision issued by the New York Court of Appeals in 1914 which established principles of respondeat superior in United States law.

<i>Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon</i> 1917 New York contract law case

Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88, 118 N.E. 214 (1917), is a New York state contract case in which the New York Court of Appeals held Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, to a contract that assigned the sole right to market her name to her advertising agent.

Audita querela is a writ, stemming from English common law, that serves to permit a defendant who has had a judgment rendered against him or her to seek relief of the consequences of such a judgment where there is some new evidence or legal defense that was not previously available. The writ is thus generally used to prevent a judgment from being executed where enforcement of that judgment would be "contrary to justice". At common law, the writ may be useful where a creditor engages in fraud before the judgment is rendered, or because the debt had been discharged, paid or otherwise satisfied after the judgment is rendered.

<i>Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent</i>

Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921) is an American contract law case of the New York Court of Appeals with a majority opinion by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo. It dealt with the matters of material breach and substantial performance.

<i>Hamer v. Sidway</i> 1891 New York contract law case

Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256, was a noted decision by the New York Court of Appeals, New York, United States. Hamer v. Sidway is an important case in American contract law which established that forbearance of legal rights on promises of future benefit made by other parties can constitute valid consideration, and, in addition, that unilateral contracts were valid under New York law.

<i>Hochster v De La Tour</i>

Hochster v De La Tour[1853] EWHC J72 (QB) is a landmark English contract law case on anticipatory breach of contract. It held that if a contract is repudiated before the date of performance, damages may be claimed immediately.

<i>Crabb v Arun DC</i> English land and contract law case

Crabb v Arun District Council [1975] EWCA Civ 7 is a leading English land law and contract case concerning "proprietary estoppel". Lord Denning MR affirmed that where agreements concern the acquisition of rights over land, there is no need for both parties to provide a consideration for upholding the bargain. While promissory estoppel cannot found a cause of action it was held that in the peculiar situation of land, consideration is not necessary at all.

<i>Cunningham v. Cunningham</i>

Cunningham v. Cunningham, 99 N.E. 845, was a case heard by the New York Court of Appeals which allowed the annulment of a marriage that took place in New Jersey, where the bride had been below the age of consent in both states.

Northern Railroad (New Hampshire)

The Northern Railroad was a U.S. railroad in central New Hampshire. Originally opened from Concord to West Lebanon in 1847, the Northern Railroad become part of the Boston and Maine system by 1890.

The Ministry of Planning and Finance administers Burma's monetary, fiscal policies and national planning.

The Poor Act 1697, formally titled An Act for supplying some Defects in the Laws for the Relief of the Poor of this Kingdom, was a 1697 welfare statute, operating within the framework of the Act for the Relief of the Poor 1601, also called the Elizabethan Poor Act. This Act is perhaps best remembered for its expansion of the requirement that welfare recipients be marked to indicate their status, in this case by wearing a prominent badge.

<i>King v. Trustees of Boston Univ.</i>

King v. Trustees of Boston Univ. 420 Mass. 52 was a contracts case tried in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1995, involving gratuitous transfer and consideration. Coretta Scott King the administratrix of the estate of Martin Luther King, Jr. submitted a motion for judgment to the trial court to recover papers that Martin Luther King, Jr. submitted to Boston University, claiming that the papers were the property of the estate. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, the papers were deposited as a charitable contribution to Boston University. The plaintiff appealed, the trial courts decision was affirmed.

References

  1. Reese Jr., Fred S. (January 1918). "Case Comment: Contracts: Performance of Existing Contract as Consideration: Consideration in Ante-Nuptial Contracts" . Cornell Law Quarterly. 3 (2): 137–142. Retrieved 10 January 2016 via HeinOnline.
  2. "Noble Count to Have Check or Bring Suit". Bessemer Herald. Vol. 28, no. 41. Bessemer, Michigan. November 29, 1913. p. 8. Retrieved 9 January 2016 via Newspapers.com. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  3. Birmingham, Robert (September 1992). "A Study After Cardozo: De Cicco v. Schweizer, Noncooperative Games, and Neural Computing" . University of Miami Law Review. 47 (1): 136. Retrieved 10 January 2016 via HeinOnline.

Further reading