Weaver v. Bachert
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Lehigh county. Dec. 16. — This was an action by Bachert, for a breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff, under exception, proved, 1st, her own acts, as purchasing furniture, dresses, &c., and declarations of her intention to marry defendant, made at the time, to prove her promise. 2d, Also that she had a child by defendant. 3d, That in conversation with a third person, he had declared he never intended to marry her.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Lehigh county. Dec. 16. — This was an action by Bachert, for a breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff, under exception, proved, 1st, her own acts, as purchasing furniture, dresses, &c., and declarations of her intention to marry defendant, made at the time, to prove her promise. 2d, Also that she had a child by defendant. 3d, That in conversation with a third person, he had declared he never intended to marry her. The evidence of the promise was, constant visits, during which they were left alone; conversations respecting the disgrace, during which she said,…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
— The decision of the point before us by the Supreme Court of Kentucky, in Burks v. Shain, 2 Bibb, 343, seems to be founded in the true principles of the action. The mind is indeed at first inclined to doubt it, by the inequality of the consequences of seduction, which are borne by the feebler party, and produced by her confidence in the promise whose breach is the ground of the action. Still illicit intercourse is an act of mutual imprudence; and the law makes no distinction between the sexes as to the comparative infirmity of their common nature. A woman is not seduced against her consent,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Foster v. ScoffieldNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Hay v. GrahamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844