Davis v. Herrington

13 S.W. 215, 53 Ark. 5, 1890 Ark. LEXIS 26
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMarch 1, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 13 S.W. 215 (Davis v. Herrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. Herrington, 13 S.W. 215, 53 Ark. 5, 1890 Ark. LEXIS 26 (Ark. 1890).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. Bastard child — Father’s port^ConsidMa’S10n' By the common law, the mother, and not the putative father, of an illegitimate child is bound to maintain it. The father’s promise to the mother to pay her for the. maintenance is a promise to pay her for doing what she is already legally bound to do, and is not enforceable because not supported by a consideration. One is not legally bound by a promise to fulfill a moral obligation where no legal obligation or liability for the thing promised ever existed. But the statute in this State confers upon the mother of a bastard child the right to compel the father to contribute to the support of their offspring by affiliating it upon him. Mansf. Dig., secs. 445 et seq. His promise to pay her for the maintenance is, therefore, based not only upon a moral obligation but also a legal liability which she may cast upon him, and that fact furnishes a consideration for his promise. Smith v. Roche, 6 C. B. (95 Eng. Com.), 223; Hargroves v. Freeman, 12 Ga., 342; Maxwell v. Campbell, 8 Ohio St., 265.

The promise of the appellant’s intestate was, therefore, based upon an adequate consideration, and was enforceable against his estate.

2- .verbal promise to pay mitSSm™18But the statement of the appellee’s claim shows that it rr was due in annual installments, and as the promise was not in writing, the remedy upon the installments which fell due more than three years prior to the institution of this suit is barred. If the appellee will remit the amount recovered upon the installments indicated, the judgment for the residue will be affirmed; otherwise the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Douglas v. First Student, Inc.
2011 Ark. 463 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2011)
Green v. Bell
826 S.W.2d 226 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1992)
Paul M. v. Teresa M.
818 S.W.2d 594 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1991)
Roque v. Frederick
614 S.W.2d 667 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1981)
Winston v. Robinson
606 S.W.2d 757 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1980)
Wilder v. Garner
360 S.W.2d 192 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1962)
Wilson v. Wilson
329 S.W.2d 557 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1959)
Fiege v. Boehm
123 A.2d 316 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1956)
State v. Sax
42 N.W.2d 680 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1950)
Smith v. Milam
110 S.W.2d 1062 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1937)
Scott v. State
292 S.W. 979 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1927)
Boynton v. Salinger
126 N.W. 369 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 S.W. 215, 53 Ark. 5, 1890 Ark. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-herrington-ark-1890.