Hook v. George
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for breach of a promise of marriage. At the trial in the superior court, before Putnam, J., the defendant, in opening his case, admitted his promise to marry the plaintiff, “ and relied on matters which occurred at an interview between the parties on March 18, 1867, as a justification to himself for then separating from the plaintiff" and subsequently marrying another person; ” and testified that at that interview he told the plaintiff" that he had made arrangements…
Read the full summary
Contract for breach of a promise of marriage. At the trial in the superior court, before Putnam, J., the defendant, in opening his case, admitted his promise to marry the plaintiff, “ and relied on matters which occurred at an interview between the parties on March 18, 1867, as a justification to himself for then separating from the plaintiff" and subsequently marrying another person; ” and testified that at that interview he told the plaintiff" that he had made arrangements for a home on a farm in Amesbury, and proposed to live there, but she utterly refused to live there, and said “ that…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
The defendant’s letter to the plaintiff, written on the 24th of March 1867, speaks of the pain it had given *334him to hear the sentiments which the plaintiff had expressed in regard to his daughter Alice, and the manner and warmth with which she had expressed herself. It speaks of his love for Alice as his child, whatever her faults might be; and of the fact that the breach was becoming wider between the plaintiff and her. It concludes with the expression of a belief that the union between himself and the plaintiff would be anything but a happy one, and respectfully asks to be released from the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Miller v. RosierMichigan Supreme Court · 1875