Leaman v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 08 September 1906
• Citation: 86 P. 926,43 Wash. 579
• Parties: LEAMAN v. THOMPSON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

86 P. 926

43 Wash. 579

LEAMAN v. THOMPSON.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 8, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; W. W. Black, Judge.

Action by Jennie Leaman against Alexander Thompson. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Willett & Willett and John H. Perry, for appellant.

Coleman & Forgarty, for respondent.

HADLEY J.

This is an action for damages for breach of a marriage contract. The complaint alleges that during the fall of the year 1898 at the special instance and request of the defendant, the plaintiff promised and agreed to marry him and that the defendant, in consideration thereof, promised to marry the plaintiff within a reasonable time thereafter; that thereafter the parties talked of their engagement with their friends, and made the same known to the world; that the date for the marriage was at one time fixed for the year 1902, and that the plaintiff, who was then and now is the owner and keeper of a lodging house, set apart and refused to rent desirable apartments, retaining them for the future use of herself and the defendant; that she was led to, and did announce the approaching marriage to the guests in her house but that the defendant asked for, and the plaintiff consented to, a postponement of the wedding; that time after time, from the year 1898 to and including the month of June, 1905, the defendant repeated his promise to marry the plaintiff, and in the presence of her friends he so talked and demeaned himself as to give them to understand that he would marry plaintiff within a reasonable time; that confiding in the promise of defendant, the plaintiff has heretofore refused to enter into a marriage contract with any other man, and has at all times been ready and willing to marry the defendant, all of which the defendant well knew; that the defendant has disregarded his promise, has contrived falsely and subtly to deceive the plaintiff, and has not taken her to be his wife, although a reasonable time for that purpose has long since elapsed, and he has been frequently requested so to do, and that he has hitherto refused, and now refuses to marry the plaintiff. Issue was joined on the complaint, and the cause came on for trial before a jury. At the close of the testimony submitted by the plaintiff, the defendant interposed a motion for nonsuit. Pending the ruling upon this motion, the plaintiff asked leave to amend her complaint in a particular that will be hereinafter explained. Her request was denied, and the nonsuit was granted. Plaintiff at once gave notice in open court of appeal, and the cause is now here for review of the court's refusal to permit the amendment, and of its order granting the nonsuit.

The evidence developed the fact that the plaintiff had formerly been married, but that she had been divorced. It was disclosed that the decree of divorce was entered by the superior court of Snohomish county on the 8th day of January 1900. The time first alleged in the complaint when the first promise of marriage occurred between the parties hereto was during the fall of the year 1898, which was more than a year prior to the divorce. For manifest reasons, a promise made at that time was void, as being against public policy, and without legal force and effect. It was the view of the trial court that the only promise of marriage alleged was that of 1898, and that all the evidence was in support of that promise only. The court stated that appellant had selected a new husband before she was released from the old one, and that, having then attempted to enter into a contract for marriage, the subsequent negotiations between the parties were merely intended as a continuance of the original void agreement. It was also the court's view that the evidence did not disclose any direct promise of marriage on the part of respondent at any time after appellant's divorce. There was abundant evidence as to the relations of the parties, covering a period of more than five years after the divorce. They maintained toward each other an attitude of much cordiality and affection. It was shown that respondent manifested many endearments towards appellant, that he kissed her in the presence of their friends, and that he repeatedly made remarks in the presence of others and in...