The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-11-16
Implied Engagements to Marry.

1t may we'll be doubted whether young
men generally in this State appreciate the
true condition OF the law In respect Of i'm
piled engagements Of marriage. A recent
breach Of promise suit in Chenango county
is an extreme case on this subject. and fur
nishes a fresh illustration Of the legal doc
trine that no express promise or formal
language is needed In order to constitute q
contract to marry.
The plaintiff in the case to which we refer
was introduced to the defendant In Decem-
Der, 1885. He told her he had long wished
to make her acquaintance. He was in the
habit Of attending the same church and
prayer meetings rs she did. and frequently
escorted her home. He also took her to
public entertainments occasionally. This
went on Tor more than two years. In the
spring of 1888, the defendants attentions
grew more marked. and he went home with
the plaintiff from church nearly every Sum
day and from prayer meeting nearly every
Thursday evening and would often 20 into
the house and remain with her, usually
alone in the parlor. until 10 or II o'clock
On one occasion there was a conversation
in reference to trip to Europe. On an
other. the defendant talked to the plaintiff
about building house. and asked her what
building lot she preferred.
In May. 1883, the plaintiff told the defend
ant that she had heard somebody say that
the only reason he went with her was TO
please himself and see how big fool he
could make OF her. She asked the defendant
whether this WAS true. aud he declared that
it was not. saying that he had admired her
from his first acquaintance with her, and
that he had never met a young lady whom
he regarded more highly: that he !onged to
make her happy, and would always protect
her. The plaintiff responded that she
wanted to know whether he was true, and
he replied that he had said all he could to
show that he was true. adding as he was
leaving: If live. will make you happy"
1t furthermore appeared on the trial that
the defendant had more than once told the
plaintiff that he did not believe in long en-
gagements and that the plaintiff received
no attentions or visits from other young
men during tho period in which the defend
ant was in the habit OF visiting her.
From these facts the trial court left 1t to
the jury to say whether or not they would
infer that there was an engagement OF mar
rage between the plaintin and the defend
ant. Tho jury found in favor of the plain
tiff and awarded her a verdict OF $4,000,
which has lately been affirmed by the Gem
eral Term Of the Supreme Court in the
Fourth Judicial Department.
1t will be observed that there was no sug-
gestion or pretence on the part of the plain
tiff that the defendant had ever In express
words either promised to marry her or
asked her to marry him. The intent OF tho
parties was solely to be inferred from their
language. not amounting to an express
agreement to marry, and their conduct
toward one another.
The leading case in this State on the same
subject is HoMAN against EARLE. which
arose in Brooklyn twenty years ago, and
went to the Court of Appeals. where tho
opinion WAS by Chief Judge CHURCH.
That great Judge laid down the truo rule
applicable to such questions AS follows
Contracts az marriage Hrs unlike AL Otha,s They
he highest interests Of human life ana enlist
the teuderrst sympaihss OF tho human heart and
acts ana declarations done and Implied by parties
goiiating them often corrsspondnRly delicate AMI
emotional As matter OF Law the learned Judge was
clearly right In hYdinE that no formal Language V