De Cicco v. Schweizer
New York Court of Appeals
117 N.E. 807 (1917)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Blanche Schweizer was engaged to marry Count Oberto Gulinelli. Four days before the wedding, Blanche’s parents, Joseph and Ernestine Schweizer (the Schweizers) (defendants), executed a contract with Gulinelli under which the Schweizers agreed to pay Blanche $2,500 per year for life, starting on her wedding day. It also promised that Blanche would inherit her share of the Schweizer estate. The written agreement cited the engagement as consideration. Blanche and Gulinelli married in January 1902, and Joseph began making the annual payments. However, in 1912, Joseph did not make the payment. Blanche and Gulinelli had assigned their interest in the payments to Attilio De Cicco (plaintiff), and De Cicco sued the Schweizers, seeking the agreement’s enforcement. The Schweizers argued that because Blanche and Gulinelli were engaged when the contract was executed, the marriage merely constituted the fulfillment of a preexisting duty. Consequently, neither the engagement nor the marriage constituted the consideration necessary for the formation of an enforceable contract. The trial court held in De Cicco’s favor, and the appellate division affirmed. The Schweizers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cardozo, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.