M'Kee v. Nelson
New York Supreme Court
Action for breach of promise of marriage. On the trial r 0 at the city of New York, before Edwards, C. Judge. February 9, 1825, the plaintiff proved the progress oí tne mtimacy between the parties, and finally a promise or mar- • . . , . . , „ n . nage, and the defendant’s refusal to execute it.
Read the full summary
Action for breach of promise of marriage. On the trial r 0 at the city of New York, before Edwards, C. Judge. February 9, 1825, the plaintiff proved the progress oí tne mtimacy between the parties, and finally a promise or mar- • . . , . . , „ n . nage, and the defendant’s refusal to execute it. And in the course of the examination of witnesses, W. J. M’Kee and ? Margaret M’Kee, witnesses for the plaintiff, expressed their opinions that the plaintiff was from what they saw, much attached to the defendant. This passed without objection. Thomas M’Kee, also a witness for the plaintiff, expressed…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
We think the Judge’s decision founded in good sense, and-in the nature of tilings. We do not see how the various facts upon which an opinion of the plaintiff’s attach- • ment must be grounded are capable of specification,, so as to leave it, like ordinary facts, as a matter of inference, to the jury. It is true, as a general rule, that witnesses are not al*357lowed to give their opinions to a jury; but there are exceptions, and we think this one of them. There are a thousand nameless things, indicating the existence and degree of the tender passion, which language cannot specify. The…
2Cited by22 opinions
- State v. PikeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1870
- Clark v. . BairdNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Horn v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1903
- Carney v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
- De Witt v. . Barly and SchoonmakerNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.