Hill v. Maupin

• Decision Date: 30 April 1834
• Citation: 3 Mo. 323
• Parties: HILL v. MAUPIN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

3 Mo. 323

HILL

v.MAUPIN.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1834.

ERROR FROM THE BOONE CIRCUIT COURT.

WASH, J.

The only question presented in this case is, whether seduction procured under color of a contract to marry, can be given in evidence in an action for the breach of that contract to aggravate the damages This has been settled in the case of Green v. Spencer, just decided.

The judgment of the Circuit Court in this case is, therefore, affirmed with costs.

TOMPKINS, J., dissenting.

The statement of the case being made by the majority of the court, I will pass it over to the only point on which I differ materially from them, viz: that evidence may be given in an action for a breach of contract of marriage, of seduction, and getting the plaintiff with child. It is admitted by the counsel for the defendant in error, that the authorities upon the subject of the admission of such evidence differ; against such admission he cites Buck v. Shain, 2 Bibb, 341, and very correctly shows that the case is not in point.

In favor of the admission he cites Johnston v. Caulkins, 1 Johnson's Cases in Error, 116; Paul v. Frazier, 3 Massachusetts Reports, p. 73; Boynton v. Kellogg, ibidem, p. 188; and Conn v. Wilson, 2 Overton's Ten. Rep. p. 233. In the case of Johnston v. Caulkins, the only questions decided by the court were, whether in an action for breach of contract of marriage, the defendant was allowed to give in evidence in mitigation of damages the licentious conduct of the plaintiff, without any limitation as to the time he made the promise to her, or to the period of the proposed marriage, and that in such a case it is not necessary for the female plaintiff to prove a previous offer to marry the defendant. The case of Boynton v. Kellogg, was for a breach of promise of marriage and seduction. In the Judge's report of this case, it does not appear that any evidence was offered of seduction, and the point decided in this case is, that in an action for a breach of promise of marriage and for seduction, the defendant shall not give in evidence the general bad character of the plaintiff, between the promise and the breach, in mitigation of damages. So far as the counsel for the defendant neglected to demur to this declaration, it may be admitted to be of some authority; and we are left to one of these conjectures, either that the defendant's counsel did not read the declaration, or that if he did read it he might know the plaintiff could give no evidence of the seduction, and therefore did not care to take the trouble of writing a demurrer, or he might think that the court would sustain the declaration.

But in the opinion of the judges, as delivered in the report, there is no allusion to the charge of seduction laid in the declaration. The case of Paul v. Frazier, 3 Mass. Rep. 73, is also an action for a single woman against one for seducing and getting her with child, under a pretense of a design to marry her. In this case Chief Justice Parsons arre...