Butler v. Eschleman
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action in assumpsit for a breach of promise to marry. Plea — general issue. Trial by jury, and verdict for plaintiff for $250. The cause was Med before Breese, Judge, at October term, 1855, of the Clinton Circuit Court.
Read the full summary
This was an action in assumpsit for a breach of promise to marry. Plea — general issue. Trial by jury, and verdict for plaintiff for $250. The cause was Med before Breese, Judge, at October term, 1855, of the Clinton Circuit Court. On the trial, the defendant proposed to prove particular acts of the plaintiff, on various occasions, before and after her intimacy with the defendant, tending to show that she was an unchaste woman; the circuit court refused to admit evidence of particular acts of lewdness with other men than the defendant, unless the acts had been communicated to the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtScates, C. J.
On trial of the general issue for breach of promise, defendant below offered to “prove particular acts of the plaintiff on various occasions, before and after her intimacy with the defendant, tending to show that she was an unchaste woman.” This proof the court refused to admit, “ unless the same were communicated to the defendant after his supposed promise.”
Upon this arises the question here.
We think the ruling correct. Not, however, in the exclusion of particular facts — that is the proper mode of establishing such a defense, in cases of this character — but a suitor, with a full knowledge…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Boynton v. KelloggMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
3Cited by9 opinions
- Kelley v. HighfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1887
- Bowman v. BowmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1899
- Colburn v. MarbleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Espy v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1861
- La Porte v. WallaceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1900
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.