Legal Opinion

Hatton v. Stott

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 2, 1922No. Docket No. 78PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Wayne; Dingeman (Harry J.), J. Case by Monica Hatton against Arthur F. Stott for breach of promise of marriage accompanied by seduction. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtSharpe, J.

Defendant by writ of error reviews a judgment for plaintiff for $35,000 damages in an action for breach of promise of marriage accompanied by seduction. A motion for a new trial for the reasons, among others, that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, and was excessive, was overruled. A somewhat lengthy statement of the facts therefore seems necessary.

Plaintiff and defendant became acquainted in Detroit in 1909. She was then 15 years of. age and he a little older. They became fond of each other and corresponded with some frequency until 1913. They saw each other…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bennett v. BeamMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Jolman v. AlbertsMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Gagush v. HoeftMichigan Supreme Court · 1917

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Easton v. MedemaMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Welch v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1943
  3. Ballance v. DunningtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Cleavenger v. CastleMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
  5. State v. MasonOhio Court of Appeals · 1948

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API