Goddard v. Westcott

• Decision Date: 01 August 1890
• Citation: 82 Mich. 180,46 N.W. 242
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: GODDARD v. WESTCOTT.

46 N.W. 242

82 Mich. 180

GODDARD v. WESTCOTT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

August 1, 1890

Error to circuit court, Kent county; MARSDEN C. BURCH, Judge.

Crozier & Cutler, for plaintiff.

Tatem & Quinsey, for defendant.

CAHILL J.

This is an action for damages for a breach of promise of marriage. The declaration is in the ordinary form where no special damages are claimed, and the plea is the general issue without notice of special defense. The plaintiff was about 40 years of age when her alleged engagement to the defendant took place, and the defendant was about 70. She and the defendant both lived at Byron Center, in Kent county. The plaintiff had made her home for the most part with her brother-in-law, except at intervals, when she was employed at domestic service in the neighborhood. She became acquainted with defendant in the winter and spring of 1886. At that time she lived in his family, and was employed as cook housekeeper, and nurse for his wife, who was an invalid, and soon after died. The plaintiff claims that about two and a half years after the death of defendant's wife, and in the fall of 1888, he began to pay his addresses to her, with a view to matrimony,-waited upon her, took her out riding and to church, and had numerous interviews with her, at each of which, after the first, he proposed marriage. That she declined giving him a definite answer until she had considered the matter, and had consulted with her friends. That she also urged her fear that a certain married daughter of defendant's living at Elyria, Ohio, would object to the match. Plaintiff claims that she also urged as obstacles to the union certain discrepancies of disposition and habits of life which she feared could not be reconciled but that defendant promised to reform his habits of life, and to conform to her ideas. That finally all the differences were reconciled except the consent of the daughter in Ohio, and that this objection was urged by her, and not by defendant. She claims that defendant was urgent for an answer before the 9th of October, on which date there was to be an excursion to Ohio; and, if she gave her consent, they were to go down to Ohio together, and be married there. That, on the Sunday evening preceding the proposed excursion to Ohio, plaintiff had promised defendant a definite answer. That on this particular Sunday in question the parties were together the most of the day and evening, at which time plaintiff finally gave her consent. That, on the Tuesday following, they, in company with others from their neighborhood, started on the excursion to Ohio. That they sat together in the same seat during the entire trip, until they reached Elyria, where the defendant stopped, but the plaintiff went on to Cleveland, with the understanding that a few days after she would return to Elyria, where they had mutual friends; that defendant would meet her, and they would then be married. Plaintiff claims that she returned to Elyria as promised. That defendant met her at the train, and told her that his daughter Mrs. Langton had been very much excited when he told her of his contemplated marriage with the plaintiff; that she had had fits which lasted three days; and that the proposed marriage would have to be delayed for some time. That she went from the train to her cousin's house in the village, with the understanding that defendant should call and see her soon after. She claims, also, that her contemplated marriage had in some manner become known to her friends and relatives in Elyria, and that, when they questioned her about it, she admitted it, and told them that she was waiting in expectation of the defendant's coming to see her. She claims to have waited at one place for nearly a week, and at another place for three days, in hourly expectation that the defendant would come to see her, and arrange for the marriage, and that she was greatly humiliated by his failure to come, and by the commiseration of her friends on account of the defendant's neglect of her. That, hearing that defendant was about to return to Byron Center, she went to the depot for the purpose of returning with him. That defendant did not appear, and she came home without him, reaching home on the 5th of November. That some days afterwards the defendant returned. That she met the defendant casually at a neighbor's soon after his return. That nothing special was said about their relations. That about the 22d or 23d of November she learned for the first time that the defendant was married; and in company with her brother-in-law, Mr. Carpenter, and Mr. Drinkall, she went to defendant's house to see him in relation to it. She there, in the presence of her friends, charged him with having deceived her, and with having married another woman. He denied that he was married, and gave as a reason for his refusal to marry the plaintiff- First, that his daughter Mrs. Langton, at Elyria, would not give her consent, and had been greatly excited over his proposed marriage; and, second, that he had learned that the plaintiff had some physical infirmities which made him unwilling to marry her. That he told her that he had learned this from her friends.

The evidence shows that the defendant was in fact married during his visit to Elyria, Ohio, in the month of October. The defendant does not deny that he proposed marriage to the plaintiff at different times during the months of September and October, 1888; but he says that she at all times refused her consent, on the ground that she did not wish to marry him unless it was agreeable to his children; that all of his children except one lived in the same neighborhood, and were willing, but that Mrs. Langton, a daughter, lived at Elyria, Ohio; that the understanding between himself and plaintiff was that they should go to Ohio on an excursion; that he should there see his daughter; and that if she consented the marriage should then take place, but that if she did not consent the proposed marriage should be abandoned. He also claims that on the Sunday night preceding their trip to Ohio the plaintiff made certain statements to him in regard to the condition of her health which made him unwilling to marry her, and that he then, upon hearing her statement, expressly told her that he would not marry her. He admits that, on the trip to Ohio, he and the plaintiff occupied the same seat, and that their friends, who accompanied them, joked them more or less on their proposed marriage. He admits that at the interview with the plaintiff and her brother-in-law and Mr. Drinkall, after his return from Ohio, he denied that he was married, and gave as an excuse that he did not consider that it concerned the plaintiff whether he was married or not.

On the trial the plaintiff was allowed to testify under objection that certain persons had told her what defendant had said about her health; that they had told her that defendant had told them that she had a cancer; that she had heard three different stories about her disability, which it was claimed the defendant had put in circulation. In response to the objection of defenda...