Rogers v. Joughin

2 Citing cases

  1. Miller v. Greene

    104 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1958)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that quantum meruit recovery is proper where one furnishes services to another, which are of benefit to the recipient, under an invalid or unenforceable contract

    Among the authorities which support the view we have adopted herein is 1 Restatement, Contracts, Sec. 192, wherein it is said that any contract for which marriage or a promise of marriage is the consideration, in whole or in part, is within the Statute. Also see 2 Corbin on Contracts, Sec. 426; 2 Williston on Contracts, Sec. 486 (Rev. ed. 1936) which says this rule applies in the case of indivisible contracts; Stevens v. Niblack's Adm'r, 1934, 256 Ky. 255, 75 S.W.2d 770; Terry v. Terry, 1936, 264 Ky. 625, 95 S.W.2d 282; Henry v. Henry, 1875, 27 Ohio St. 121; Rogers v. Joughin, 1929, 152 Wn. 448, 277 P. 988, which case recognizes no distinction between contracts made "in contemplation" and those made "in consideration" of marriage. Also see 37 C.J.S. Frauds, Statute of ยง 230, which states that where one of the considerations for payment of money or transfer of property is a promise of marriage, the contract is within the Statute and the whole contract must fail, but that it is otherwise where the promise to marry is separable from the agreement to pay money or transfer property.

  2. Allen v. Dillard

    15 Wn. 2d 35 (Wash. 1942)   Cited 29 times
    In Allen v. Dillard, 15 Wn.2d 35, 129 P.2d 813, 823, the Court said: "A statement which under some circumstances may be against the interest of the declarant may not be used to prove matters as to which the statement is not against his interest."

    After the death of the mother, the daughter to whom she had bequeathed her property denied that she was bound to leave her property to her sister, and, in an action by that sister to enforce the agreement, it was held that such a contract as the one sought to be proven created an express trust, and could not be shown by parol evidence. In the case of Rogers v. Joughin, 152 Wn. 448, 277 P. 988, it appeared that Floyd G. Rogers and Cora Edith Rogers were married in October, 1917. Mrs. Rogers had previously been married to one Woodrow, from whom she had been divorced, and from whom she had received certain property, which she owned at the time of her marriage to Mr. Rogers. She also owned some other property, some of which she had inherited from her parents.