Langley v. Schumacker
California Supreme Court
1DissentSpence, J.
I dissent.
In my opinion plaintiff’s alleged cause of action is esse^ tially one for damages for “breach of promise of marriage,” within the meaning of section 43.5 of the Civil Code, which provides that “no cause of action arises” in such cases.
The majority opinion states: “However, the language of the code section indicates that it was only intended to abolish causes of action based on an alleged breach of contract. The plaintiff’s complaint states a cause of action for fraud—the making of promises without any intention of performing them. . . . Such a cause of action is not barred by…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sharon v. SharonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Thibault v. LalumiereMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
- Lanigan v. NeelyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Andie v. KaplanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Norman v. BurksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.