Farrington v Donohoe

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 June 1866
• Date: 12 June 1866
• Court: Common Pleas Division (Ireland)

Com. Pleas.

FARRINGTON

and

DONOHOE.

Murphy v. O'Sullivan This case was not at the time in print, but has since appeared in the 11 Ir. Jur., N. S., 111.

Crowhurst v. LaverackENR 8 Exch. 208.

Peter v. Compton 1 Sm. L. C. 5th ed. 283.

ENR 1 Salk. 280.

Fenton v. EmblersENR 3 Burr. 1278.

Gilbert v. SykesENR 16 East, 150.

Wells v. HortonENR 4 Bing. 40.

Souch v. StrawbridgeENR 2 C. B. 808, 814.

Sweet v. LeeENR 1 H. & N. 81.

Giraud v. RichmondENR 6 East, 602.

Dobson v. CollisUNK 11 Ir. L. R. 79, 110.

Crossby v. WadsworthUNK 2 B. & B. 99.

Power v. St.George 7 W. R. 87.

Teal v. AutyUNK 2 B. & 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. 208.

Boydell v. DrummondENR 11 East, 142.

Giraud v. RichmondENR 2 C. B. 835.

Peter v. Compton 1 Sm. L. C., 5th ed. p. 283.

Tierney v. MarshallUNK 7 Ir. C. L. 308.

Stilk . MyrickENR 2 Camp. 317.

Harris v. Watson Peake Cas. 102.

Harris v. CarterENR 3 E. & B. 559

Lord Lexingtion v. Clarke and WifeENR 2 Ventr. 223.

Chater v. BeckettENR 7 T. R. 201.

thomas v. WilliamsENR 10 B. & C. 664.

Ruttinger v. TempleENR 4 B. & S. 491.

Jennings v. BrownENR 9 M. & W. 496.

Smith v. Roche 6 C. B. N. s. 223.

Beeston v. CollyerENR 4 Bing. 309.

Souch v. StrawbridgeENR 2 C. B. 808.

Crowhurst v. LaverackENR 8 Exch. 208.

Lavery v. TurleyENR 6 H. & N. 239.

Mechelen v. Wallace 7 A. & E. 49.

King . SearsENR 2 Cr. M. & R. 48.

COMMON LAW SERIES. 075 FARRINGTON v. DONOHOE.* A parol agreement to maintain a child, known to be about five years old, Com. Pleas. until she be able to " do for herself," is " an agreement not to be performed 1866. within a year" within the meaning of the Statute of Frauds, although it might May 1, 2. be determined within the year by the happening of a collateral event. June 12 Murphy v. Sullivan, 11 Ir. Jur. N. S. 111, discussed. Quare. If A, a stranger, made a gratuitous promise to the mother of an illeÂÂgitimate child to pay her for its maintenance, and the child has been accordÂÂingly supported by the mother, can the mother maintain an action against A for the past maintenance, upon a quantum meruit ? THIS case came before the Court upon motion to show cause against a conditional order for a new trial obtained on a former day, upon the double ground of misdirection by the learned Judge, and. that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. It appeared in evidence that the Plaintiff was the mother of an illegitimate child alleged to be the daughter of the late Mr. Donohoe, the Defendant's brother, who died in 1859. The DefenÂÂdant was the executor of his brother, but the action was not brought against him as executor. The Plaintiff was examined as a witness on her own behalf, and stated that the late Mr. Donohoe was its father, and that during his life he allowed and paid her 44 a year for the support of the child, and that immediately after his death the Defendant, his brother, paid. her 5, which was portion of the 44 a year promised her by his brother, and promised to pay her 20 a year for the support of the child until she was able to support herself ; that this allowance of 20 a year was paid quarÂÂterly to July, 1862, since which time no part of it was paid, and the action was brought for so much of the 20 a year as accrued due up to the time of the commencement of the action. She had maintained the child to the present time. She gave in evidence several letters which she received from the Defendant ; and, in cross examination, admitted several letters written by her to him, but stated that she had no notice from the Defendant of his intention to discontinue the allowance promised to be paid her ; that it had been regularly paid to April, 1862, at 5 per quarter ; and that in April, 1862, in addition to the 5, she was paid a further snm of 5. The De * Reported by Valentine J. Coppinger, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 2 Z2 THE IRISH REPORTS. fendant, Mr. Donohoe, who is resident out of the country, was exÂÂamined under a Commission. He denied that he had entered into any agreement with the Plaintiff to pay her any sum...