De Cicco v. Schweizer
Open-knowledge reference entry
De Cicco v. Schweizer, 117 N.E. 807 (N.Y. 1917), is a notable contract law case concerning privity of contract and consideration. The case examined whether there was consideration in a contract where person A makes a promise to person B, and in exchange person B promises to perform a previous contract obligation to person C. Additionally, the case looked at the general class of prenuptial agreements.
Factual background
On January 20, 1902, Count Oberto Gulinelli of Italy married Blanche Schweizer, of Lincoln Square, Manhattan. Joseph and Ernestine Teresa Schweizer, Blanche's parents, had signed documents providing a substantial dowry to the betrothed. The Schweizers were to pay $2,500 every January 20 for the rest of their lives, and leave half their estate—estimated at well over $1M in 1912—to the pair. For ten years, the Schweizers paid on time, but payments ceased in 1912. Gulinelli assigned the $2,500 payment to one Attilio De Cicco, who brought suit in New York to recover the payment.
According to testimony at trial, the Gulinellis may have sought to separate in 1911. Blanche came to New York, where she asked for and received money from her father, which he later argued was an advance on the 1912 allowance.
The public source identifies “De Cicco v. Schweizer” as open-knowledge reference entry. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Cicco, Schweizer and Open-knowledge.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “De Cicco v. Schweizer”, the useful work is to connect “open-knowledge reference entry” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 15, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q5243874. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1917, 1902, 1912 and 1911.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “De Cicco v. Schweizer”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow De Cicco v. Schweizer primary sources, De Cicco v. Schweizer archive and Cicco research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “De Cicco v. Schweizer”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “De Cicco v. Schweizer” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.