King v. Kersey
Indiana Supreme Court
ERROR, to the Decatur Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Perkins, J,
Case for breach of marriage promise. The declaration was demurred to because it did not aver a request to marry on the part of the plaintiff. The demurrer was overruled. This was right. The declaration averred that the defendant had married another. Hence no averment of a request to many the plaintiff was necessary. 1 Swa. Pr. 300, note.
The general issue was filed. At a subsequent term a continuance was moved for by the defendant upon an affidavit that he could, by an absent witness, impeach the plaintiff’s character for chastity. Evidence for that pur*403pose might have been…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Elkins v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Whalen v. LaymanIndiana Supreme Court · 1828
3Cited by19 opinions
- Gunder v. TibbitsIndiana Supreme Court · 1899
- Haymond v. SaucerIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Lanigan v. NeelyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Stratton v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- Jones v. LaymanIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.