Korte v. Hoffman

• Decision Date: 04 February 1889
• Citation: 10 S.W. 390,97 Mo. 284
• Parties: KORTE v. HOFFMAN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

10 S.W. 390

97 Mo. 284

KORTE v. HOFFMAN.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February 4, 1889.

1. WITNESS — IMPEACHMENT.

Where defendant had, on cross-examination of plaintiff, read certain parts of her deposition taken by him, for the purpose of impeachment, it was competent for plaintiff to read the whole to the jury.

2. NEW TRIAL — PHYSICAL CONDITION OF DEFENDANT.

The court properly refused to grant defendant a new trial on affidavits to the effect that when testifying he was so nervous, excited, and embarrassed that he forgot many important facts, and answered in such a manner as to prejudice his case.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; SHEPARD BARCLAY, Judge.

Action by Mary Korte against Sebastian Hoffman to recover damages for a breach of promise of marriage. Defendant appeals from a verdict and judgment for plaintiff.

W. B. Thompson, for appellant. Louis Gottschalk, for respondent.

BRACE, J.

This is an action for damages for breach of promise of marriage, in which the plaintiff recovered judgment in the trial court for $3,000. The answer was a general denial. There was evidence tending to show an unconditional agreement between the parties to marry at an indefinite time in the near future; that defendant refused to perform his agreement, and married another woman; and there was evidence tending to prove that the agreement to marry was conditioned upon the approval of the match by the children of the defendant, who was a widower of mature years, in comfortable circumstances. It was conceded that defendant refused to marry the plaintiff, and married another woman.

The question of fact in controversy was whether the engagement between the parties was absolute and unconditional, as claimed by the plaintiff, or conditional, and dependent upon the approval of his children, as claimed for the defendant. This issue was submitted to the jury upon instructions as favorable to defendant as ought to have been given, and found for the plaintiff. There being evidence in the case to support that finding, its sufficiency will not be inquired into, or the finding reviewed by this court. Wilbur v. Johnson, 58 Mo. 600. The contract and its breach being established by the verdict, the damages are not excessive, under all the facts and circumstances as they appear in the evidence.

Several objections are urged to the action of the court in admitting evidence for the plaintiff, but we find no error affecting the merits of the case in this behalf, in any...