{
  "id": 2088593,
  "name": "FANNY FROLICK v. JAMES T. SCHONWALD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Frolick v. Schonwald",
  "decision_date": "1860-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "427",
  "last_page": "429",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "7 Jones 427"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 N.C. 427"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 340,
    "char_count": 5232,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "sha256": "0a21818704ecf4291422400de0b771cf47b44b60a8a231d13cc2b5651d353aa9",
    "simhash": "1:fe484f741499df95",
    "word_count": 906
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:19.129964+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FANNY FROLICK v. JAMES T. SCHONWALD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MaNly, J.\nThe-decision, made in the Court below, is predicated upon the -construction that defendant\u2019s obligations, arising out of the contract, were determinable by him, at will. In substance, it was there held- that a demand for the child operated as a rescisi\u00f3n of the covenant to pay the stipulated price for her support. This seems to us, not to be reasonable, and therefore, not the true construction of the instrument.\u2014 It amounts, according to this view, to nothing more than a putting of the child, with plaintiff, to be brought up; and.a promise to pay at the rate of $10 per month, for the time she might be permitted to stay there. The parties would hardly have conceived it necessary, to resort to the amount of verbiage, adopted in the paper, to evidence so simple an idea. We take it, something more was meant. Our construction is, that the child is committed for nurture and education to the plaintiff, to remain until the ward attained the age of twenty-one, unless plaintiff, 'in the mean time, shall fail to perform, or improperly fulfil her duties ; (other stipulations and conditions, not affecting our enquiries, we omit to notice.)\nThe words of the paper are, that \u201c the custody of the child may be resumed by defendant when he shall become dissatisfied with the manner of its education, treatment, or maintenance, or other cause? A capricious and wanton dissatisfaction, on the part of defendant, seems not to have been in the minds of the parties, and would be inconsistent with a fundamental idea in respect to mutual covenants, viz: equal, as well as mutual benefits and obligations. The defendant must have cause- \u2014 reasonable cause, for dissatisfaction. It is only in that state of things, he can terminate the woman\u2019s right, under the contract, to the .custody of the child. And, it is very certain, that as long as the right is united with the actual custody, the plaintiff may recover the stipulated pay. There was error in the instructions to1 the jury, and there should, therefore, be a veni/re ele novo.\nPee Cueiam,\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MaNly, J. Pee Cueiam,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "V. A. Wright-m\u00e1 JSalcer, for the plaintiff.",
      "No counsel appeared for the defendant -in this Court"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FANNY FROLICK v. JAMES T. SCHONWALD.\nWhere the mother of an illegitimate child, and its father entered into covenants, whereby the mother obliged herself to keep and ed\u00facale it, till it got to be twenty-one, and the father to pay her a stipulated monthly price for so doing, with a provision, that if the father should become dissatisfied with the manner of its education and treatment, he might resume the possession of the child, and the payments cease, it was Held that, in order to get rid of the obligation to pay, the father had to show that he had reasonable cause of dissatisfaction.\nActioN of coveNant, tried before Shepheed, J., at the last Spring Term of New Hanover Superior Court.\nThe plaintiff being the mother of an illegitimate child, begotten by the defendant, they entered into articles of agreement in respect to the custody and nurture of the child, the provisions of which material to this suit, are as follows:\u2014 \u201cthat the said James T. Schonwald being anxious to provide support and maintenance for a certain female child, known by the name of Eveleen, and the said party of the second part, having agreed to keep, rear, and maintain the said child until she comes of lawful age, hath, and by these presents, doth for himself, his heirs, &e., covenant * * to, and with the said \u25a0party of fhe second part, that he will well and truly pay or cause to be paid to her, or her order annually, during the minority of the said child, * * one hundred and twenty dollars in twelve equal annual instalments of ten dollars each, x- \u00bb anq j-0 continue during the minority of the said child, or-for such period only, as the said child shall remain in the custody of the said party of the second part.\u201d Then comes a covenant on her part, \u201ckeep,-rear, and board, clothe and instruct\u201d the said child'\" dnring-thewhole time of her minority, or during the whole time in which she shall remain in her custody.\u201d * * \u201cAnd, it is agreed, understood and mutually \u00a1covenanted by and between the parties hereto, that if at any time hereafter, the said party of the first pai-t shall become dissatisfied with the manner in which the said child is educated, treated or maintained, or any other canse, or at the request of the said party of the second part, or in the event of her marriage or decease, or the like, that then it shall and may be lawfel for the-said party of the first part to resume the -possession of the said child, without any question, doubt, suit, or trouble.\u201d\nIt was in evidence that the defendant made several payments according to the terms, and some months previous to the beginning-of the suit, he demanded that the child should be given up to him, which was refused by the mother. It was further in evidence, that she has had the custodj1- and nurture of the child-from the date of the covenant.\nThe Court was of opinion that the demand made by the defendant for the surrender of the child, discharged the d\u00e9fendaat from subsequent liability, and so instructed the jury.\nThe plaintiff-excepted. Verdict for the defendant. -Judgment and appeal.\nV. A. Wright-m\u00e1 JSalcer, for the plaintiff.\nNo counsel appeared for the defendant -in this Court"
  },
  "file_name": "0427-01",
  "first_page_order": 435,
  "last_page_order": 437
}