{"id":9153,"date":"2013-04-02T13:21:44","date_gmt":"2013-04-02T13:21:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/legaldictionary.lawin.org?p=9153"},"modified":"2013-04-02T13:21:44","modified_gmt":"2013-04-02T13:21:44","slug":"eastwood-v-kenyon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawlegal.eu\/eastwood-v-kenyon\/","title":{"rendered":"Eastwood V. Kenyon"},"content":{"rendered":"
((1840), 11 Ad. & El. 438). ” Past consideration is no consideration.” The plaintiff had been guardian of the defendant’s wife, and agent of her property during her infancy, and had voluntarily incurred expense in that behalf. After marriage the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff the amount of his expenses. Held, there was no consideration for the promise<\/p>\n<\/h4>\n
You might be interested in these references tools:<\/p>\n