Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-11-05
COSTS ON PLAINTIFF.
Court Decides Case of Ofutt Versus
Officutt

Special Correspondence Of The Star.
ROCKVILLE, Md, November 3. 1906.
Judges Henderson and Motter. in the cir
cult court at this place, have filed their
opinion in the case of Katherine Seager Of
futt. now a resident of Washington. against
Catharine " Offutt and others of this
county 1t was an action brought by the
plaintiff for the specific performance of a
contract and the decision of the court dis
misses the bill and places the costs of the
litigation on the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was formerly Miss Katherine
Seager. In October. 1901, she married the
late Luther NJ Offutt who was one of this
county's best-known citizens. Mr.. Offutt
died in November, 1904, intestate, leaving
no descendants. He was possessed of a val
liable farm in Potomac district and large
amount of personal property. The bill filed
by his widow was against his administra-
tors and heirs at law. including two sisters,
a number of nieces and nephews and the
widow and children of nephew. who died
during the tendency of the litigation. All
the defendants are prominent residents of
this county The litigation was for the
purpose of enforcing the specific perform
ance of an alleged ante-nuptial contract
made in consideration of marriage.
The bill alleged that during the courtship
of Mr.. Offutt and Miss Seager, which be-
gan in 1890, the former repeatedly urged
the latter to marry him. but she persistently
refused to do So In June, 19e1 the plain
tiff received a letter from Mr.. Offutt which,
1t was alleged. contained an offer to give
her all he possessed If she would marry
him. and that several months later the
marriage occurred Miss Emily Healy of
Washington testified that several months
before the engagement was announced she
heard Mr. Offutt promise Miss Seager his
farm, for which he claimed he had re-
fused an offer of $4,000: certain stocks and
bonds. money in bank and other personal
property, If she would marry him. In the
courts decision, however, the testimony of
Miss Healy is decided to be Irrelevant and
immaterial and the letter referred to de-
termined to be the only point in the case.
Extract From Letter.
Among other, things this letter says: II
have pledged myself to take care Of you
and support you as long you live. and
no one else. Who has a better right to 1t
than you? What Is mine will be yours, and
what is yours will be mine. You will be as
myself. I will never turn from you for
any one
"I will do anything for you that is right
I will do anything to please you and make
you happy and contented. and l will fix it
in any way that will please you. 1 don't
want any one else to have it. Don't worry
yourself about this. We will fix it to suit
US both"
In regard to this letter. the decision says:
of the marriage vow, With all my worldly
goods I endow thee combined with
pledge of fidelity and loyalty, and means
nothing but the promise of the use of prop
erty for mutual benefit and enjoyment dur
ing the continuance Of the marriage rela-
ton. It is love letter, and the express
sions used therein are but the protestation
of an elderly but ardent wooer made to the
lady of his choice to induce her to marry
him. The letter contains definite quail
fed offer to make any specific pecuniary
provision for the plaintiff. or to make a
settlement upon her of any portion of his
property.
Substance of Decision.
In dsmssing the bill, the decision holds
that the plaintiffs case, even from her own
showing, is but 4 promise broken, although
an apparent bona fide effort made to
perform it. 1T is possible" the decision
continues, that the conclusion we have
reached may result in some measure of in
justice to the plaintiff, but we have not
found that the facts justify us in departing
from the well and long esta blished rules of
law in order to prevent a possible injury or
to correct a mistake for which the plaintiff
seems to have been largely responsible"
The plaintiff was represented by States
Attorney Robert B. Peter and the defend
ants by Mr.. Edward C. Peter. The case
will be taken to the court of appeals.