Fiege v. Boehm

Facts

Boehm, an unmarried typist, testified that in January 1951 Fiege had sexual intercourse with her in his car. She became pregnant and gave birth to a girl on September 29, 1951. She testified that Fiege agreed to pay her medical and hospital costs, make up the salary she lost, and pay ten dollars per week for the child's support. In return, she was to refrain from starting bastardy proceedings (a statutory prosecution to make the father of a child born out of wedlock support it). Between September 17, 1951, and May 1953, Fiege paid her a total of $480. Fiege denied having intercourse with her and denied any agreement, though he admitted the payments. His father testified that Fiege wanted the matter kept quiet, away from his mother, the public and the courts, and that he would take care of it. In May 1953, Fiege had blood tests made. A hematologist testified that Fiege's blood was Type O, Boehm's was Type B and the child's was Type A, so Fiege could not have been the father. Fiege stopped paying. Boehm then filed a bastardy charge, and on October 8, 1953, the Criminal Court found Fiege not guilty on the blood-test testimony. Boehm claimed the unpaid balance of $2,415.80.

Issues

1. Is a woman's promise not to bring bastardy proceedings sufficient consideration for the putative father's promise to pay for the child's support, when blood tests later indicated he could not be the father and he was acquitted?
2. Did Fiege properly preserve his complaint that the jury charge was in error?

Holding

Boehm's promise to forbear bastardy proceedings was sufficient consideration for Fiege's promise to pay, because the evidence indicated she made the charge in good faith and there was no proof of fraud or unfairness, even assuming the blood tests were accurate. The demurrer and directed verdict were properly overruled, and the jury-charge complaint was not preserved.