Booren v. McWilliams
| Decision Date | 24 March 1916 |
| Citation | 157 N.W. 698,34 N.D. 74 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Rehearing denied April 27, 1916.
Appeal from District Court, Towner County, A. G. Burr, Special Judge.
From a judgment in plaintiff's favor and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Bangs Netcher, & Hamilton, for appellant.
When an express promise of marriage is pleaded, as in this case, the promise or contract cannot be shown, inferred, or implied from acts and conduct. Reynolds v. Curry, 81 Kan 443, 105 P. 437; Bleiler v. Koons, 132 Pa. 101, 19 A. 140.
Where conduct of parties is relied upon as establishing a promise evidence is restricted and limited to open, visible, or public conduct of the parties toward each other. Wrynn v Downey, 27 R. I. 454, 4 L.R.A.(N.S.) 615, 114 Am. St. Rep. 63, 63 A. 401, 8 Ann. Cas. 912; Button v. Hibbard, 62 Hun, 289, 64 N.Y. S. R. 80, 31 N.Y.S. 483; Walker v. Johnson, 6 Ind.App. 600, 33 N.E. 267, 34 N.E. 100.
Mere attentions, although exclusive and long continued, are not enough to show a promise of marriage. Walmsley v. Robinson, 63 Ill. 41, 14 Am. Rep. 111; Burnham v. Cornwell, 16 B. Mon. 284, 63 Am. Dec. 529; Weaver v. Bachert, 2 Pa.St. 80, 44 Am. Dec. 159; Yale v. Curtiss, 151 N.Y. 598, 45 N.E. 1125; Espy v. Jones, 37 Ala. 379; Munson v. Hastings, 12 Vt. 346, 36 Am. Dec. 345; Standiford v. Gentry, 32 Mo. 477.
It is the tendency of the jury to lean to the side of the woman, in such cases, and if there is any evidence, by fact or circumstances, that tends to show this contract relation, the jury will follow it, however strong other evidence may be against it. Walmsley v. Robinson, 63 Ill. 41, 14 Am. Rep. 111.
A witness may testify as to the conduct, demeanor, or manner of another, and in so doing may use words which amount to characterization of the same. 5 Enc. Ev. 674, and cases cited; McKillop v. Duluth Street R. Co. 53 Minn. 532, 55 N.W. 739; M'Kee v. Nelson, 4 Cow. 355, 15 Am. Dec. 384.
A contract of marriage is made up of mutual promises. There is no sufficient showing here of mutuality, to warrant a verdict for plaintiff. Weaver v. Bachert, 2 Pa.St. 80, 44 Am. Dec. 159; Burnham v. Cornwell, 16 B. Mon. 284, 63 Am. Dec. 530.
Professions of respect, attachment, or even of love, are not promises of marriage. Hinckley v. Jewett, 86 Neb. 464, 125 N.W. 1086.
Evidence of improper intimacy between the parties is not admissible to prove a promise or for any purpose. Felger v. Etzell, 75 Ind. 417; Broyhill v. Norton, 175 Mo. 190, 74 S.W. 1024.
The plaintiff must show an unconditional promise of marriage. Connolly v. Bollinger, 67 W.Va. 30, 67 S.E. 71, 20 Ann. Cas. 1350.
A promise of marriage in consideration that the promise should, before marriage, have sexual intercourse with the promisor, is void. Hanks v. Naglee, 54 Cal. 51, 35 Am. Rep. 67; Saxon v. Wood, 4 Ind.App. 242, 30 N.E. 797.
If the promise is connected with or grows out of an immoral or illegal act, a court of justice will not enforce it. 2 Kent. Com. 460; Dupont v. McAdow, 6 Mont. 226, 9 P. 925; White v. White, 82 Cal. 427, 7 L.R.A. 799, 23 P. 276; McBean v. McBean, 37 Ore. 195, 61 P. 418; Williams v. Williams, 46 Wis. 464, 32 Am. Rep. 722, 1 N.W. 98.
The consent of the woman induced by artifice or deceit is an essential element necessary to be shown in order to establish the fact of seduction. Lee v. Hefley, 21 Ind. 98; Bradshaw v. Jones, 103 Tenn. 331, 76 Am. St. Rep. 655, 52 S.W. 1072; White v. Murtland, 71 Ill. 250, 22 Am. Rep. 100; Marshall v. Taylor, 98 Cal. 55, 35 Am. St. Rep. 144, 32 P. 867.
She must show that she relied on the promise, and that it was because of the promise and her reliance thereon that she allowed the defendant to carnally know her. Baird v. Boehner, 72 Iowa 318, 33 N.W. 694; Gover v. Dill, 3 Iowa 337; Brown v. Kingsley, 38 Iowa 220; Parker v. Monteith, 7 Ore. 277; Patterson v. Hayden, 17 Ore. 238, 3 L.R.A. 529, 11 Am. St. Rep. 822, 21 P. 129; Breon v. Henkle, 14 Ore. 494, 13 P. 289.
The promise of marriage must be the moving cause of consent. Cooper v. State, 90 Ala. 641, 8 So. 821; People v. Wallace, 109 Cal. 611, 42 P. 159; Phillips v. State, 108 Ind. 406, 9 N.E. 345; People v. Hubbard, 92 Mich. 322, 52 N.W. 729; Loque v. Dejan, 36 L.R.A.(N.S.) 389, note.
The law looks with suspicion upon the testimony of a female claiming to have been seduced, and generally requires corroboration. Armstrong v. People, 70 N.Y. 38.
And circumstances shown by, or growing out of her own testimony, are not corroboration. State v. Kingsley, 39 Iowa 439; State v. Painter, 50 Iowa 317.
Where the verdict does not conform to the evidence, and is not supported by the evidence, and is contrary to law, the rule is that even though there is some conflict in the testimony it is the duty of the court to grant a new trial. Weisser v. Southern P. R. Co. 148 Cal. 426, 83 P. 439, 7 Ann. Cas. 636, 19 Am. Neg. Rep. 88; Denver Tramway Co. v. Owens, 20 Colo. 107, 36 P. 848, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 231; Dickey v. Davis, 39 Cal. 565; Clark v. Great Northern R. Co. 37 Wash. 537, 79 P. 1108, 2 Ann. Cas. 760; Godfrey v. Godfrey, 127 Wis. 47, 106 N.W. 814, 7 Ann. Cas. 176; Phillips v. Laughlin, 99 Me. 26, 105 Am. St. Rep. 253, 58 A. 64, 2 Ann. Cas. 1; Pollitz v. Wickersham, 150 Cal. 238, 88 P. 911; McMahon v. Rhode Island Co. Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1226, note; Buck v. Buck, 122 Minn. 463, 142 N.W. 729; Woodbury Co. v. Dougherty & B. Co. 161 Iowa 571, 143 N.W. 416; Bentley v. Hoagland, 94 Neb. 442, 143 N.W. 465; Pengilly v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. 11 N.D. 249, 91 N.W. 63, 12 Am. Neg. Rep. 619; Johnson v. Domer, 76 Wash. 677, 136 P. 1169; Carrier v. Donovan, 88 Conn. 37, 89 A. 894.
It is the duty of the court to weigh the evidence, on a motion for a new trial, and determine its sufficiency to sustain the verdict, and to say whether or not there is sufficient legal evidence to support the verdict. Cannon v. Deming, 3 S.D. 421, 53 N.W. 863; Erickson v. Sophy, 10 S.D. 71, 71 N.W. 758; Lowry v. Piper, 20 N.D. 637, 127 N.W. 1046; Comeau v. Burley, 24 S.D. 255, 123 N.W. 714; Stone v. Crow, 2 S.D. 525, 51 N.W. 335; McArthur v. Dryden, 6 N.D. 438, 71 N.W. 125; Dickinson v. Hahn, 19 S.D. 525, 104 N.W. 247; Morgan v. J. W. Robinson Co. 157 Cal. 348, 107 P. 695; Morgan v. Los Angeles Pacific Co. 13 Cal.App. 12, 108 P. 735; Re Martin, 113 Cal. 479, 45 P. 813; Drathman v. Cohen, 139 Cal. 310, 73 P. 181; Witter v. Redwine, 14 Cal.App. 393, 112 P. 311.
If it appears to the trial court that the jury have found against the weight of the evidence, it is his bounden duty to set the verdict aside. Kansas P. R. Co. v. Kunkel, 17 Kan. 145, 3 Am. Neg. Cas. 412; Williams v. Townsend, 15 Kan. 563; Johnson v. Leggett, 28 Kan. 590.
"A verdict which induces the belief that it must have been found through passion, prejudice, mistake, or some means not apparent in the record, will be set aside." Garfield v. Hodges, 90 Neb. 122, 132 N.W. 923; Tyler v. Hoover, 92 Neb. 221, 138 N.W. 129; Southard v. Behrns, 52 Neb. 486, 72 N.W. 860; American F. Ins. Co. v. Buckstaff Bros. Mfg. Co. 52 Neb. 676, 72 N.W. 1047; Symns Grocery Co. v. Snow Bros. 58 Neb. 516, 78 N.W. 1066; Frerking v. Thomas, 64 Neb. 193, 89 N.W. 1005; Booth v. Andrus, 91 Neb. 810, 137 N.W. 884; Heink v. Lewis, 89 Neb. 705, 131 N.W. 1051; Shulze v. Shea, 37 Colo. 337, 86 P. 117; Furber v. Fogler, 97 Me. 585, 55 A. 514.
Where in an action for breach of promise of marriage the evidence is of doubtful merit, and in many respects improbable, a new trial should be granted. Hill v. Jones, 109 Minn. 370, 123 N.W. 927, 18 Ann. Cas. 359; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 77 N.W. 813; Messenger v. St. Paul City R. Co. 77 Minn. 34, 79 N.W. 583; Harvey v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 153 N.C. 567, 69 S.E. 627; 11 Current Law, 997; McCann v. McGuire, 83 Conn. 445, 76 A. 1003; Bank of Commerce v. Smith, 57 Minn. 374, 59 N.W. 311; New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Hamlet Hay Co. 149 Ind. 344, 47 N.E. 1060, 49 N.E. 269; People's Sav. L. & Bldg. Asso. v. Spears, 115 Ind. 297, 17 N.E. 570; Witter v. Redwine, 14 Cal.App. 393, 112 P. 311; Donelson v. East St. Louis & S. R. Co. 235 Ill. 625, 85 N.E. 914; Sylvester v. Olson, 63 Wash. 285, 115 P. 175; Fuller v. Northern P. Elevator Co. 2 N.D. 222, 50 N.W. 359; Harrison v. Sutter Street R. Co. 116 Cal. 156, 47 P. 1019, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 403; Steinbuchel v. Wright, 43 Kan. 307, 23 P. 560; Libby v. Towel, 90 Me. 262, 38 A. 171; Bissell v. Dickerson, 64 Conn. 61, 29 A. 226; Averill v. Robinson, 70 Vt. 161, 40 A. 49; Maynard v. Des Moines, 159 Iowa 126, 140 N.W. 208; Pleasants v. Fant, 22 Wall. 116, 22 L.Ed. 780.
A verdict cannot be sustained on a scintilla of evidence. Fuller v. Northern P. Elevator Co. 2 N.D. 220; Rosenbaum v. Hayes, 8 N.D. 469, 79 N.W. 987.
A verdict that must be either without support in the evidence or contrary to the instructions of the court cannot stand. McArthur v. Dryden, 6 N.D. 438, 71 N.W. 125; Furber v. Fogler, 97 Me. 585, 55 A. 514.
A judicial discretion means an honest, unbiased judgment and exercise of power to see that justice is done. Johnson v. Grayson, 230 Mo. 380, 130 S.W. 673; Root v. Bingham, 26 S.D. 118, 128 N.W. 132; Pugh v. Bluff City Excursion Co. 101 C. C. A. 403, 177 F. 399; Galvin v. Tibbs Hutchins Co. 17 N.D. 600, 119 N.W. 39.
The verdict of the jury bears upon its face the impress of sympathy, bias, partiality, passion, and prejudice, resulting in excessive damages. Union P. R. Co. v. Hand, 7 Kan. 380; Tunnel Min. & Leasing Co. v. Cooper, 50 Colo. 390, 39 L.R.A.(N. S.) 1064, 115 P. 901, Ann. Cas 1912C, 504; F. M. Davis Iron Works Co. v. White, 31 Colo. 82, 71 P. 384; Cassin v. Delany, 38 N.Y. 180; Bass v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 39 Wis. 637; Baker v. Briggs,...
To continue reading
Request your trial