Snowman v. Wardwell
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit, upon an alleged breach of a contract of marriage. In order to prove the contract, the plaintiff proved tentions by the defendant to her in 1847 and 1848. The defendant denied having entered into such a contract. He also contended that, if such a contract should be proved, the plaintiff, by committing fornication with other men in August, 1847, had absolved him from the obligation to marry her. Evidence upon these points was presented to the jury.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon an alleged breach of a contract of marriage. In order to prove the contract, the plaintiff proved tentions by the defendant to her in 1847 and 1848. The defendant denied having entered into such a contract. He also contended that, if such a contract should be proved, the plaintiff, by committing fornication with other men in August, 1847, had absolved him from the obligation to marry her. Evidence upon these points was presented to the jury. Some of the plaintiff’s witnesses testified that the defendant continued his visits and his attentions to her until into 1848. The trial…
1Opinion of the Court
Wells, J.,
orally.—There was testimony tending to show that, whatever may have been the plaintiff’s misconduct, the defendant had information of it; and that he, nevertheless, continued his visits and attentions to her.
The jury were instructed that the defendant would not be excused from the contract, if he continued it in force, after he, had knowledge of her misconduct.
It is argued that the ruling was erroneous, because it required the plaintiff to believe or pre-supposed him to have believed, whatever rumors he might hear.
But the ruling did not relate to rumors, which he might have heard.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Kelley v. HighfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1887
- Bowman v. BowmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1899
- Harrison v. WellsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1955
- Vose v. MayoU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1871