Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1893-12-21
-
ENGAGEMENTS TO MARRY.
Wherein They Legally Differ From All
Other Kinds of Contracts


1t may well 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 coun-
ty is an extreme case on this subject and
furnishes fresh illustration of the legal
doctrine that no express promise or formal
language is needed in order to constitute
contract to marry.
The plaintiff in the case to which we
refer was introduced to the defendant in
December, 1885. He told her he had long
wished to make her acquaintance. He
was in the habit of attending the same
church ana prayer meetings as she did
and frequently escorted her home. He also
took her to public entertainments occa-
sionally. This went on for more than two
years. In the spring of 1883, the defend
ants attentions grew more marked, and
he went home with the plaintiff from
church nearly every Sunday and from
prayer meeting nearly every Thursday
evening and would often go into the house
and remain with her, usually alone in the
parlor, until 10 or II o'clock. On one &C.
casion there was a conversation in refer
ence to trip to Europe. On another, the
defendant talked to the plaintiff about
building house and asked her what
building lot she preferred.
In May, 1883, the plaintiff told the de-
PENDANT 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 defend
ant whether this was true, and he declared
that it was not, saying that he had ad-
mired her from his first acquaintance with
her. and that he had never met young
lady whom he regarded more highly; that
he longed to make her happy and would
always protect her. The plaintiff respond.
ed that she wanted 70 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, eff 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
engagements, and that the plaintiff re-
ceiyed no attentions or visits from other
young men during the period in which the
defendant was in the habit of visiting her.
From these facts the trial court left it
to the jury to say whether or not they
would infer that there was an engagement
of marriage between the plaintiff and the
defendant. The jury found in favor of the
plaintiff and awarded her verdict of 49,
900, which has lately been affirmed by the
general term of the supreme court in the
fourth judicial department.
1t will be observed that there was no
suggestion or pretense on the part of the
plaintiff that the defendant had ever in
express words either promised to marry
her or asked her to marry him. The in
tent of the parties was solely to be inferred
from their language, not amounting to an
express agreement to marry, and their con-
duct toward one another.
The leading case in this state on the
same subject is Homan against Earle,
which arose in Brooklyn 20 years ago, and
went to the court of appeals, where the
opinion was byChief Judge Church.
That great judge laid down the true
rule applicable to such questions as fol-
lows:
Contracts of marriage are unlike all
others. They concern the highest inter
ests of human life and enlist the tenderest
sympathies of the human heart, and the
acts and declarations done and implied by
parties negotiating them are often CORE
spondingly delicate and emotional. AS
matter of law the learned judge was clear
ly right in holding that no formal Ian
guage is necessary to constitute the con-
tract of marriage If the conduct and dec
larations of the parties clearly indicate
that they regard themselves as engaged,
it is not material by what means they have
arrived at that state.
The application of this rule to the Che
mango county case led the general term to
affirm the judgment. a consideration OF
the facts upon which the jury found in IA
vor of the plaintiff should suggest to young
men that if they conduct themselves as
though they were engaged they may be-
come defendants in breach of promise suits
whether they have ever actually said any
thing about marriage or not.-New York
Sun.