Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1893-12-12
ENGAGEMENTS TO MARRY.
wherein They Legally Differ From ~
O,her Kinds of Contracts

O,her Kinds of Contracts
1t may well be doubted whether yoans
v,an generally in this state appreciate tue
trD. condition of the law in respect OF iff'-
nile, engagements of marriage. reeen'
hr,,aeh Of promise suit in Chenihgo ee"n,
=. !, a., aItr,p,e case on this subject anu
furnishes fresh illustration Of the legal
doctrine tina, no express promise or iorhiai
lsnguace is needed in order to eonstita,s
a contract 10 nnarryD
The nlaintiff in the case to when we
refsr was introduced to the Defendant III
December. 1885 He told her be Rad long
wished 10 make her acquaintance lie
-. In the habit of attending the same
.hnreh ard prayer meetings as she did
- frsouently escorted her home. He also
,nnk her To public entertainments occa-
s;nnalIy This went on for more than TWO
,ssrs In the spring of 1855, the defend
.,t,s attentions grew more marked, and
h. went home with the plaintiff rom
church nearly every Sunday and rom
prayer meeting nearly every THURSDAY
evening and would often 20 into the mouse
ap,, remain with her. usually alone IN the
narlor. until 10 or IL O'Clock. on one oc'
castor, thcr,, was n conversation IN REFER
ence TO trip to Europe. On another. the
defendant talked TO the plaintld anout
buiIiine house and asked her what
building lot she preferred.
In MAY. 1855, the plaintiff told the oe-
PENDANT that she had heard somebody say
that the only reason he went with her was
to please himself aud see how big iooi ne
could make Of her. She asked the deieho,
ant whether this was true, and he declared
that it was not. saying that ne had au
mirel her from his first acquaintance WIN
her and that he had never met a young
lady whom he regarded more highly that
he longed 10 make her happy and would
always protect her. The plaintiff respond
ed that she wanted to know whether ne
was true. and be replied that he had saiu
all he could to show that he was true,
adding as he WAS leaving, IF live, lwii
make you happy"
Ii furthermore appeared ON the triai that
the defcudan; had more than once toiu
| the plaintiff that he did not believe III long
engagements. and that the plaihtiu re-
ceived no attentions or visits 1rohl o'her
Young men during theperiod IN which the
| defendant was in the habit OF visiting her
From these facts the trial court ielt IL
! to the jury to say whether or not they
would infer that there was an engagement
| of marriage between the plaintiif aud tue
| defendant The jury found in favor oil the
plaintiff and awarded her u verdict OF So
| o00. 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
| plaintiH that the defendant had ever III
EXPRESS words either promised 10 marry
L. 4 -. o., i'm a \
tent of the parties was solely tn be inferred
| from their language. not amounting t"ah
| 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 by Chief 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 tcnderest
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 a
| matter of law the learned judge was clear
| " right in holding that no formal Ian
| cuagc is nece ssary TO constitute the CON
| tract Of marriage. If heConduct and dec
| larations Of the parties clearly indicate
that they regard themselves as engaged,
it is not material 10y what means they have
| arrived ut that state
| The application Of this rule To the Che
| mango county case led the general term to
| affirm the Judgment. y consideration OF
| the facts upon which the jury found III ia
orof the plaintiff should suggest to young
| men that if they conduct themselves as
| though they We're engaged they may be
| come defendants in breach of promise suits
| whether they have ever actually sand any
| thing about marriage or not.--New York
| Sun.