Fiege v. Boehm case brief summary
210 Md. 352
SYNOPSIS: Defendant appealed from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Maryland), which overruled defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial in plaintiff's action for breach of contract to recover the expenses incident to the birth of and to provide support for defendant's illegitimate child.
FACTS:
-Plaintiff mother and defendant entered into an agreement whereupon defendant would pay the expenses related to the birth of and to provide support for defendant's illegitimate child.
-Blood tests later revealed that defendant could not have been the father.
-Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action to recover the expenses incident to the birth of and to provide support for defendant's illegitimate child.
-A jury found in favor of plaintiff.
-Defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
-On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion since there was no proof of fraud or unfairness.
HOLDING:
The promise of plaintiff that she would not institute bastardy proceedings against defendant was sufficient consideration for his promise to pay for the child's support, even though it was not certain whether defendant was the father.
RULES:
(1) Forbearance to assert a claim before institution of suit, if not in fact a legal claim, is not of itself sufficient consideration to support a promise; but (2) that a compromise of a doubtful claim or a relinquishment of a pending suit is good consideration for a promise; and (3) that in order to support a compromise, it is sufficient that the parties entering into it thought at the time there was a bona fide question between them, although it may eventually be found that there was in fact no such question.
-Forbearance to sue for a lawful claim or demand is sufficient consideration for a promise to pay for the forbearance if the party forbearing had an honest intention to prosecute litigation which is not frivolous, vexatious, or unlawful, and which he believed to be well founded.
OUTCOME: Affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial in plaintiff's action for breach of contract to recover the expenses incident to the birth of and to provide support for defendant's illegitimate child since plaintiff made the charge of bastardy in good faith.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
210 Md. 352
SYNOPSIS: Defendant appealed from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Maryland), which overruled defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial in plaintiff's action for breach of contract to recover the expenses incident to the birth of and to provide support for defendant's illegitimate child.
FACTS:
-Plaintiff mother and defendant entered into an agreement whereupon defendant would pay the expenses related to the birth of and to provide support for defendant's illegitimate child.
-Blood tests later revealed that defendant could not have been the father.
-Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action to recover the expenses incident to the birth of and to provide support for defendant's illegitimate child.
-A jury found in favor of plaintiff.
-Defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
-On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion since there was no proof of fraud or unfairness.
HOLDING:
The promise of plaintiff that she would not institute bastardy proceedings against defendant was sufficient consideration for his promise to pay for the child's support, even though it was not certain whether defendant was the father.
RULES:
(1) Forbearance to assert a claim before institution of suit, if not in fact a legal claim, is not of itself sufficient consideration to support a promise; but (2) that a compromise of a doubtful claim or a relinquishment of a pending suit is good consideration for a promise; and (3) that in order to support a compromise, it is sufficient that the parties entering into it thought at the time there was a bona fide question between them, although it may eventually be found that there was in fact no such question.
-Forbearance to sue for a lawful claim or demand is sufficient consideration for a promise to pay for the forbearance if the party forbearing had an honest intention to prosecute litigation which is not frivolous, vexatious, or unlawful, and which he believed to be well founded.
OUTCOME: Affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial in plaintiff's action for breach of contract to recover the expenses incident to the birth of and to provide support for defendant's illegitimate child since plaintiff made the charge of bastardy in good faith.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
Fiege v. Boehm
ReplyDelete· Woman had child out of wedlock – father was not paying, so she started proceedings. Father decided to pay, and she dropped proceedings.
· Man finds out he is not the father.
· Exchange: you gave up something with no value, a nonexistent claim, for my promise – should not be bound (so says the defendant).
· Defendant loses on this something-for-nothing trade – still must pay. (money for no liability, though the proceeding would have shown he had no liability anyway)
· D loses because it was a g good faith claim when the deal was made (woman thought baby was his even though it wasn’t)
· But problem here is that no one knew whether case was a winner or a loser. Both thought he could have been the father – like buying the lotto ticket. Claim of uncertain value. Promise to pay ten dollars for a ticket that turns out to have no worth – still obligated to pay. Just like settling a law claim – no one knew who the winner would have been but promise is still enforceable (even if found out later the verdict). Just need good faith belief.
· If trade is a trade only in words an illusory in reality, might be no contract (so says cohen – think about this)