Manning v. Loew case brief summary
46 N.E.2d 1022 (1943)
CASE FACTS
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.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
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
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_swzLXlSIIvSq_4CvpGt1rtKZJfCPAIkBNrI0YTiKTtb1nbO_01WLPDuK0LJpzK8WFejnKXEnHXOxS9afcwpZ3CstOD3O_xFAIMk_EzE4sYNUu2_7VYK6wEWoUZ_rv72yy-KTChw18D9w34sh6jFrF_FwUDbDhYbdZ4xdfDt_2q1YC77GthaCo9WOJTD6KQhahwBZ5R8oZrCSuAuCzUZvQq_QXruOwlE-nVv7ESnyaPh0Up-00TmBIH9i1vPSqEX-RPiXUcqx8pzJK3=s0-d)
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_t0s9FA-rj6F1fpc3dhBVTr9RLyglPs7YGk_Im_LpkxfWQD9H-5aMasQd25WhFQQHfBjvgqSfqzLUeEUuU8e6rV06eEXG_C62xhljcllmRMc4FJhEG4DkZ0_TjpzR2BHs38aLvkHSzv905GjVKgiqvzrgPitmvLneDNmQgcnzXEQN6MG_F3GfjLLEjAeZ60aBHN-QwQz-Nc-i23gdavlJvb6uDSrvtZfTytFl7vofhb44GLngwGQK9fq2X7yBpgEQzMNCraTqsgfs8=s0-d)
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uHaiJLIBB4xrzsFY1ioVDiNZiFPJJ0ovDUDWX2JdKHFM8cIIQkndgjcRgdobTFJdPzVU8_s8-ZSBYgbMSkTa409tBoI4WR_fcayETtNUEkxkdFc4vz7R3JeOWIqaal5IVeqbgGdd2dG2v6aVdoUck73H1YFdQWH2HPLISAtecbFzLZrMEMmAG4lAdKJFE1DKQNEDwn9aDcxCixt4869tetI1lHpuFBAw1ley9dNiKYXyJo9ICice6_V51GVcZ21xYsEegLT6Q8W0jO=s0-d)
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_soMycX54EA-1YAvi9Sy323lZ6LjnxR9pA4Yism3bRSyNGdfIN6K3R-6kWiGXvQ9w-jWov-5FghQ3SRGXipgWJXLeSXl9jLIsF4j0yiGT8lGABDoq3uH4sfrn0XcdSwAtFqvAa0IFrAAdDnHOxu8GSA012gPzaTphMI0VWEg6jwABaZX2uH6hn02_QOuAJwR16UNNUyuwMqZfK8XO6s2Sb2xveNf03ll1XjEtKtY3boBL4TrIrMvVcwPwKJyHPBFAc69R1xah_L2fui=s0-d)
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
46 N.E.2d 1022 (1943)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff appealed from a decision of
the Suffolk Superior Court (Massachusetts) directing a verdict for
the defendant in plaintiff's action for breach of contract.CASE FACTS
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.
DISCUSSION
- 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 .
CONCLUSION
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
No comments:
Post a Comment