Casey v. Gill

• Decision Date: 06 February 1900
• Parties: CASEY v. GILL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

55 S.W. 219

154 Mo. 181

CASEY v. GILL.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 6, 1900.

BREACH OF PROMISE — EVIDENCE — REMARKS OF COUNSEL — APPEAL — RECORD.

1. Error in permitting plaintiff in an action for breach of promise to be cross-examined as to her previous engagement to another than defendant cannot be considered on appeal; objection not having been made in the trial court to the evidence.

2. Plaintiff in an action for breach of promise having alleged defendant to be worth a certain amount, and having proved that he was a member of a certain firm, defendant can show his actual financial standing.

3. An improper remark of counsel cannot be considered on appeal; appellant not having asked the trial court to instruct the jury to disregard it, or excepted to its failure to rebuke counsel therefor.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; D. D. Fisher, Judge.

Action by Nellie Marie Casey against Thomas B. Gill. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Action for breach of promise of marriage. Plaintiff, an unmarried woman, alleges that defendant on or about April 11, 1895, sought her hand in marriage, and they each mutually agreed to marry the other in June or July, 1895, and that thereafter the marriage ceremony was postponed by mutual agreement from time to time until January, 1896, and on the 16th of January plaintiff requested defendant to fulfill his promise, and he refused to do so; that she was at all times ready and willing to marry defendant according to her agreement; that defendant was not sincere in his manifestations of affection for plaintiff, but willfully, wantonly, and recklessly pretended an affection for plaintiff, and trifled with her affections, for mere pastime, wherefore she asked for $10,000 actual damages and $5,000 punitive damages. The answer was a general denial. The cause was submitted to a jury, who found for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

J. H. Trembley, for appellant. Percy Werner, for respondent.

GANTT, C. J. (after stating the facts).

Various errors are assigned for a reversal of the judgment, and they will be considered in the order of their assignment:

1. Complaint is made that the court permitted defendant to cross-examine plaintiff concerning an engagement with another young man, named King. The ground of objection made in this court is that it is no defense to an action for breach of promise that plaintiff had previously contracted to marry another person. It was so ruled, and we think correctly, in Roper v. Clay, 18 Mo. 383. But an inspection of the record discloses that no such point was raised in the circuit court. It would manifestly be improper to rule that the circuit...