Gikas v. Nicholis
| Decision Date | 07 March 1950 |
| Citation | 24 A.L.R.2d 576,71 A.2d 785,96 N.H. 177 |
| Parties | , 24 A.L.R.2d 576 GIKAS v. NICHOLIS. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
John J. Broderick, Manchester, John H. Sanders and Richard F. Upton, Concord (Mr. Upton orally), for the plaintiff.
Myer Saidel, Manchester (by brief and orally), for the defendant.
The main issue in this appeal is whether the donor of an engagement ring may recover it from the donee who terminates the engagement. By the great weight of authority recovery is allowed. Anno. 92 A.L.R. 604; Beberman v. Seagal, 6 N.J.Super. 472, 69 A.2d 587. The basis for recovery is quasi contractual, as it is considered that it is unjust for a donee to retain the fruit of a broken promise. Restatement, Restitution, § 58, comment, c.
It is not necessary and in the natural course of events it would be unusual for the donor to give the engagement ring upon the expressed condition that marriage was to ensue. Such a condition may be implied in fact or imposed by law in order to prevent unjust enrichment. 29 Cornell L.Q., 401. In this case the defendant did not testify but there is evidence from the plaintiff's testimony from which it can be found that the engagement ring was a token of the expected marriage and was given only as such.
R.L. c. 385, § 11 reads as follows: This statute although copied from the Massachusetts act was passed in 1941 (Laws 1941, c. 150) before any interpretation of the Massachusetts statute had been made. Consequently the decision in Thibault v. Lalumiere, 318 Mass. 72, 60 N.E.2d 349, 158 A.L.R. 613, is not necessarily binding here. The same is equally true of the broader New York statute which was construed in Andie v. Kaplan, 263 App.Div. 884, 32 N.Y.S.2d 429, affirmed without opinion Per Curiam, 288 N.Y. 685, 43 N.E.2d 82. It is the theory of these cases that the so-called heart-balm statutes not only bar breach of marriage contracts but any other proceeding which directly or indirectly arises out of the breach. Under that view gifts in contemplation of marriage may not be recovered even though unjust enrichment may result to the donee. The results of these cases have been almost uniformly criticized as being unnecessary and undesirable. 1947 Annual Survey of American Law 845; N.Y. Law Revision Commission, Report, Recommendations and Studies (1947) pp. 223-247.
It was not the intention of the New Hampshire Legislature in outlawing breach of promise suits to permit the unjust enrichment of persons to whom property had been transferred while the parties enjoyed a confidential relationship. To so construe the statute would be to permit the unjust enrichment which the statute is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Ratner
...We discuss this issue further, infra.9 The Court had abolished criminal conversion actions prior to this time.10 In Gikas v. Nicholis, 96 N.H. 177, 71 A.2d 785 (1950) that court permitted an action to recover an engagement ring. The court noted that in prohibiting breach of promise suits, t......
-
Cooper v. Smith
...expressly conditioned on the subsequent marriage. See Albanese v. Indelicato (1947), 25 N.J.Misc. 144, 51 A.2d 110; Gikas v. Nicholis (1950), 96 N.H. 177, 71 A.2d 785. This approach recognizes that an engagement ring symbolizes the couple's promise to marry. See Albanese. Because of that sy......
-
Campbell v. Robinson
...Barker, 339 Mass. 457, 159 N.E.2d 534, 535 (1959); Clippard v. Pfefferkorn, 168 S.W.3d 616, 620 (Mo.Ct.App.2005); Gikas v. Nicholis, 96 N.H. 177, 71 A.2d 785, 785–86 (1950); Curtis v. Anderson, 106 S.W.3d 251, 256 (Tx.Ct.App.2003); Spinnell v. Quigley, 56 Wash.App. 799, 785 P.2d 1149, 1151 ......
-
McGrath v. Dockendorf
...320 So.2d 415, 416–17 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975) ; De Cicco v. Barker , 339 Mass. 457, 159 N.E.2d 534, 535 (1959) ; Gikas v. Nicholis , 96 N.H. 177, 71 A.2d 785, 786 (1950) ; Beberman v. Segal , 6 N.J.Super. 472, 69 A.2d 587, 587 (Ct. Law Div. 1949) ; Pavlicic , 136 A.2d at 131 ; Bryan v. L......