Ableman v. Holman

• Decision Date: 11 May 1926
• Parties: ABLEMAN v. HOLMAN ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

190 Wis. 112

208 N.W. 889

ABLEMAN

v.HOLMAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 11, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sheboygan County; Michael Kirwan, Judge.

Action by Edith Ableman against Gus Holman and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Breach of promise. A trial was had upon the amended complaint, in which it was alleged that the defendant Holman had promised to marry the plaintiff; that the defendants conspired and confederated together to bring about a breach of such marriage contract. Rose Meier did not appear, and was eliminated from the case. The answer of the defendant Holman admitted the making of the contract to marry and breach thereof, and denied the conspiracy. Marie Kalk answered, denying the conspiracy. The jury found for the plaintiff, and assessed her damages at the sum of $15,000, and, from the judgment entered thereon, the defendants Holman and Kalk appeal.Reilly & O'Brien, of Fond du Lac, for appellants.

T. L. Doyle, of Fond du Lac, for respondent.

ROSENBERRY, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The appealing defendants contend: First, that two persons cannot conspire to bring about a breach by one of them of a contract to which that one is a party; second, that no action lies against a third party for inducing a breach of a contract of marriage.

If the second proposition is sound, it disposes of this appeal because the trial was so involved with the alleged conspiracy and the evidence relevant to the issue so different because of the allegations of conspiracy that a new trial must be had if the theory upon which the case was tried cannot be sustained.

[1][2] In response to the special verdict, the jury found that on or about May 13, 1924, the plaintiff and defendant Holman mutually promised and agreed to marry each other; that the defendant Holman thereafter broke his promise and definitely and finally informed the plaintiff that he would not marry her on or about the 18th day of August, 1924; that the plaintiff was at all times ready and willing to perform her part of the contract; that no justification was established by the defendant Holman for breach of the contract; that the defendants Holman and Kalk did conspire and confederate together to break the aforesaid engagement of marriage which existed between the defendant Holman and the plaintiff; and further found that the engagement “of marriage between plaintiff and the defendant Holman was broken and their intermarriage prevented by defendants Holman and Marie Kalk, in furtherance of such conspiracy.” The evidence is undisputed that it was the defendant Holman who breached the contract to marry. The judgment therefore rests upon the fact that the defendants Holman and Kalk conspired together to induce Holman to breach his contract. This constitutes no conspiracy for the reason stated in White v. White, 140 Wis. 538, 122 N. W. 1051, 133 Am. St. Rep. 1100. The evidence shows that the defendants Holman and Kalk schemed to bring about such a situation as would induce the plaintiff to abandon the contract to marry. They were, however, unsuccessful in this undertaking, and, as the jury found, the defendant Holman refused to perform. Had the defendants been successful in inducing the plaintiff to breach her contract by reason of their wrongful conduct and misrepresentations, a different...