Zirk v. Nohr, 10.
| Decision Date | 19 September 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 10.,10. |
| Citation | 127 N.J.L. 217,21 A.2d 766 |
| Parties | ZIRK v. NOHR. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A contract which implements the legal duty of a father to support his minor child is in furtherance of the public policy of the state.
2. Consideration for a promise under seal is not essential for its enforceability at law.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Suit by William Zirk, as trustee for Ruth Nohr, against August A. Nohr, Jr., to recover the arrearages due under a written instrument wherein defendant agreed to pay $20 a week for maintenance and support of his child. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 125 N.J.L. 610, 18 A. 2d 10, which affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
William Blohm, Jr., of New York City (John W. Ockford, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Armstrong & Mullen, of Jersey City (Arthur C. Mullen, of Jersey City, of counsel), for respondent.
Defendant-appellant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming a judgment of the Second District Court of Jersey City in favor of William Zirk, trustee for Ruth Nohr and against defendant-appellant for $120 and costs for arrearages on an agreement under seal by the terms of which August Nohr, Jr., agreed to pay to William Zirk, as trustee, $20 each week for the support of his infant daughter until she reached the age of 21.
Two grounds for reversal are raised, the first being that the agreement sued upon is against public policy. A father is under a legal duty to support his minor child and a contract having for its object the evasion of that duty is against public policy. 17 Corpus Juris Secundum, Contracts, § 260, p. 643. The corollary of that rule is that a contract which implements the legal duty of a father to support his minor child is in furtherance of the public policy of this state. The trustee named in such an agreement may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reitmeier v. Kalinoski
...form of consideration being recited therein. Normally, in New Jersey a sealed contract does not need consideration. Zirk v. Nohr, 127 N.J.L. 217, 21 A.2d 766 (Ct.E. & A.1941); Minch v. Saymon, 96 N.J.Super. 464, 233 A.2d 385 (Ch.Div. 1967). However, in this case, although the agreement reci......
-
Adoption of P. J. K., In re, 8065
...and Child, Sec. 48, loc. cit. 674; Id., Sec. 42, loc. cit. 653; annotation 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1014; annotation 27 L.R.A. 56; Zirk v. Nohr, 127 N.J.L. 217, 21 A.2d 766(1); Nelson v. Nelson, 340 Ill.App. 463, 92 N.E.2d 534, 536(6); Pappas v. Pappas, 247 Iowa 638, 75 N.W.2d 264, 266, 57 A.L.R.2d......
-
Linder v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...order to make a promise under seal operative as a sealed contract, that consideration be given for the promise.’ Zirk v. Nohr, 127 N.J.L. 217, 21 A.2d 766 (Ct. Err. & App. 1941). Regardless of the statutory language, were we convinced that Zirk v. Nohr represented an authoritative expositio......
-
American Handkerchief Corp. v. Frannat Realty Co.
...Weinberg, 118 N.J.Eq. 97, 98, 177 A. 844 (Ch.1935); Hildinger v. Bishop, 126 N.J.Eq. 334, 340, 8 A.2d 813 (Ch.1939); Zirk v. Nohr, 127 N.J.L. 217, 21 A.2d 766 (E. & A.1941). There is, however, another ground for rejecting plaintiff's contentions. Even assuming the existence of a valid optio......