Legal Opinion

Whalen v. Layman

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1828PublishedCited by 6 opinions

ERROR to the Bartholomew Circuit Court.—Sarah Layman brought an action of assumpsit against Thomas Whalen, for a breach of promise of marriage. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.

In an action for a breach of promise of marriage, the plaintiff offered proof of seduction. The defendant objected; but the Court overruled the objection, and permitted the evidence to go to the jury; and there was a verdict for the plaintiff below for 100 dollars. The admission of evidence of seduction is complained of by the plaintiff in error, and this is the only point in the case. There is no error here. The evidence was proper for the consideration of the jury, and the Court acted correctly in admitting it. 2 Stark. Ev. 942, n. 1, —Paul v. Frazier, 3 Mass. R. 73.—Boynton v. Kellogg, id.…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Gunder v. TibbitsIndiana Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Haymond v. SaucerIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  3. King v. KerseyIndiana Supreme Court · 1850
  4. Tubbs v. KleekIllinois Supreme Court · 1851
  5. Sauer v. SchulenbergCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1870

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API