46 N.E.2d 1022 (1943)
Plaintiff filed an action of contract against defendant, claiming they had an agreement where plaintiff would be a companion for the defendant in exchange for his obtaining a screen test for her to become an actress.
- The court here determined that the action of the trial judge in directing a verdict for the defendant was not error, and that there was a variance between the declaration of the plaintiff and the proof offered.
- The court found that plaintiff's admitted sexual conduct with the defendant was not consistent with her promise to act as a daughter to the defendant .
The court affirmed the action of the judge in directing a verdict for the defendant and overruled the plaintiff's exceptions.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.