Case Name: Spalding v. Felch
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1791-09
Citations: 1 Root 319
Docket Number: 
Parties: Spalding v. Felch.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
Spalding v. Felch.
If a female give a discharge of all demands for maintenance of a child, of which she is pregnant; and afterwards it turns out, that she was pregnant with two, the discharge will bar her remedy.
EkeoR, to reverse a judgment of the County Court in a prosecution for maintenance of a pair' of twins.
Defendant plead in bar — Tbat on the 10th of March, the plaintiff agreed with John Adams, to accept £36 lawful money in full satisfaction, for the maintenance of the child with which she was then pregnant; and to discharge him and all other persons therefrom; and the said Adams paid the said Sila £36 lawful money, which she accepted; and thereupon, and in consideration thereof she made and executed the following discharge in writing, viz. Know all men by these presents, that I Sila Spalding have this day received by the hand of John Adams £36, for and on account of the maintenance' and support of a child of which I am now pregnant, in con sideration whereof, I do acquit, exonerate, and fully and absolutely discharge the father of said child, of which I am now pregnant, of any demands I have against him 3 and any other person, shall have right to plead this discharge, who shall be prosecuted in my name, for or on account of said child: Hated, March 10th, A. H. 1Y91, Sila Spalding. 'Whereby the defendant is fully and absolutely discharged from all demands of the plaintiff on account of said child.
Plaintiff replied — That said discharge was obtained before said children were born, and before she knew she was pregnant with more than one child; when in fact she was pregnant with two children who have since been born of her body alive; and thereupon says she ought not to be barred without that, that she received of said Adams, said £36 in full satisfaction of all demands, she could, or might have upon him,, and every other person on account of her pregnancy; and without that, that she executed said discharge to and for the use of said Adams, and every other person who- might be prosecuted on that account.
The defendant affirmed over his plea, and joined issue to the court. The court found the issue in favor of the defendant, and gave judgment for his cost.
Errors assigned — That the plea in bar is insufficient, however the issue in fact might be; for that it is a general discharge of every body, and not given to> the defendant: The minds of the parties did not meet in giving and receiving it; and not being plead by way of accord and satisfaction but as a discharge, it extends to one child only; whereas the suit is for maintenance of two.

Opinion:
By the Court.
There is nothing erroneous in the judgment complained of; in such settlements the parties always run a risk; had the children been still-born, the money could not have been recovered back; and as the terms of the discharge are comprehensive enough to take in everybody she-should accuse, and especially the father; and she having charged the defendant with being the father, he hath right to take benefit of it, and she cannot say the discharge shall not extend to him.