Eliza Hicks v W. H. Gregory, Executor of Robert Gregory, Deceased
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1849 |
| Date | 24 November 1849 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 137 E.R. 556
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 19 L. J. C. P. 81; 13 Jur. 1030.
eliza hicks v. W. H. gregory, Executor of Robert Gregory, Deceased, Nov. 24, 1849. [S. C. 19 L. J. C. P. 81; 13 Jur. 1030.] The reputed father of an illegitimate child, upon ceasing to cohabit with the mother, wrote to her as follows :-" As I always promised that you and your child should never want, I will allow you 1001. a year for your life and little Emma's, to begin from the 1st of July, and to be paid quarterly, which I think will be sufficient to keep you in great comfort. Of course, if I hear of your behaving ill, or bringing up your child improperly, I will stop the allowance to you :"-Held, by Wilde, C. J., and Maule, J. (dissentiente V. Williams, J.), that the letter disclosed a sufficient consideration for the promise to pay the annuity, viz. the mother's properly bringing up the child. This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration stated, that, before the making of the promise of the said Robert Gregory, thereinafter mentioned, to wit, on the 26th of October, 1810, the plaintiff, being then sole and unmarried, and having theretofore always conducted herself with chastity and decorum, was seduced by the said Robert Gregory, who then debauched and carnally knew the plaintiff, so being sole and unmarried as aforesaid, and by means of which said seduction and carnal knowledge the plaintiff then became pregnant, and afterwards, and in the life-time of the said Robert Gregory, and before the making of the promise thereinafter mentioned, to wit, on the 28th of September, 1813, was delivered of a bastard child, to wit, a daughter, which said child had been and was begotten by the said Robert Gregory, and is still living; that after-[379]-wards, and in the life-time of the said Robert Gregory, and before the making of the said promise thereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff, so being sole and unmarried as aforesaid, and having wholly relinquished and given up all cohabitation and immoral intercourse with the said Robert Gregory, deceased, had, at his request, undertaken and then had the care and nurture of the said child; that thereupon, afterwards, and in the life-time of the said Robert Gregory, to wit, on the 4th of July, 1814, in consideration of the premises, and that the plaintiff would behave well, and continue to take charge of and properly bring up her said child, he the said Robert Gregory then promised the plaintiff, that he, the said Robert Gregory, his executors or administrators, would allow and pay to the plaintiff 1001. a year for and during the life of the plaintiff and that of the said child, to be paid quarterly, that is to say, on the 1st of July, 1st of October, 1st of January, and 1st of April, in each and every year during the time aforesaid, the first of such quarterly payments to be payable on the 1st of July, 1814; that the plaintiff had always, from the time of the making of the said promise, behaved well and in a moral and proper manner, and continued to take charge of, and so properly to bring up, and hath so properly brought up the said child ; that, before and at the commencement of this suit, the said child was, and still remained, alive,-of all which premises respectively the defendant, executor as aforesaid, afterwards, and after the death of the said Robert Gregory, to wit, on the 6th of September, 1847, had due notice; that afterwards, and after the death of the said Robert Gregory, and before the commencement of this suit, to wit, on the 1st of April, 1848, a large sum of money, to wit, 2001., of the said yearly sum of 1001., for eight quarters of a year, which then and after the death of the said Robert Gregory had elapsed, became due and payable to the plaintiff under and by .[380] virtue of the said promise of the said Robert Gregory in that behalf; nevertheless, the defendant, executor as aforesaid, not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farrington v Donohoe
...B. 99. Collis v. Botthamley 7 W. R. 87. Hodges v. Hodges Peakes's Add. Cas. 79. Ruttinger v. TempleENR 4 B. & S. 491. Hicks v. GregoryENR 8 C. B. 378. Shelton v. SpringettENR 11 C. B. 452. Smith v. RocheENR 6 C. B. N. S. 223. Santos v. BriceENR 6 H. & N. 290. Crowhurst v. LaverackENR 8 Exch......
-
Smith v Roche
...mother will not affiliate the children, but will take upon herself their sole support and maintenance. The next case is Hicks v. Gregory, 8 C. B. 378. There, the reputed father of an illegitimate child, upon ceasing to cohabit with the mother, wrote to her as follows,-" As I always promised......
-
CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS, CONSIDERATION AND MORAL HAZARD
...as an example of a case in a family context where there may well have been no intention to create legal relations. 31 In Hicks v Gregory(1849) 8 CB 378; 137 ER 556, Ward v Byham[1956] 2 All ER 318 and Dunton v Dunton(1892) 18 VLR 114, it was debatable whether there was any economic value in......