| De Cicco v. Schweizer | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Full case name | Attilio De Cicco v. Joseph Schweizer et al. |
| Argued | October 15, 1917 |
| Decided | November 13, 1917 |
| Citation | 117 N.E. 807, 221 N.Y. 431, L.R.A. 1918E 1004, Ann. Cas. 1918C 816 |
| Case history | |
| Procedural history | Judgment for plaintiff (Sup. Ct.), affirmed as modified, De Cicco v. Schweizer, 152 N.Y.S. 1106 (App. Div. 1915) (memorandum opinion) |
| Related actions | Order denying defendant's motion (Sup. Ct.), reversed, De Cicco v. Schweizer, 163 N.Y.S. 823 (App. Div. 1917) |
| Court membership | |
| Chief judge | Frank H. Hiscock |
| Associate judges | Andrews, Cardozo, Collin, Crane, Cuddeback, Pound |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Cardozo, joined by Hiscock, Cuddeback, Pound, Andrews |
| Concurrence | Crane |
| Collin took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
De Cicco v. Schweizer,[a] 117 N.E. 807 (N.Y. 1917), is a notable contract law case concerning privity of contract and consideration. The case examined whether there was consideration in a contract where person A makes a promise to person B, and in exchange person B promises to perform a previous contract obligation to person C. Additionally, the case looked at the general class of prenuptial agreements.[1]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
- ^ Reese Jr., Fred S. (January 1918). "Case Comment: Contracts: Performance of Existing Contract as Consideration: Consideration in Ante-Nuptial Contracts". Cornell Law Quarterly. 3 (2): 137–142. Retrieved January 10, 2016 – via HeinOnline.