Vanderpool v. Richardson

• Citation: 17 N.W. 936,52 Mich. 336
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 21 December 1883
• Parties: VANDERPOOL v. RICHARDSON.

17 N.W. 936

52 Mich. 336

VANDERPOOL v. RICHARDSON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 21, 1883

In a suit brought by a woman for breach of promise, the plaintiff may show that she has no independent means, and may put in evidence the letters written to her by defendant before he broke the engagement. And the jury may consider the length of the engagement, and give damages for in jury to her feelings or reputation, or any circumstances of indignity.

Error to Kalamazoo.

Severans, Tryon & Ranney, for plaintiff.

George M. Buck, for defendant and appellant.

COOLEY J.

This suit was instituted for breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff recovered judgment, which is now brought here by writ of error. The promise is alleged to have been made in 1878, while plaintiff was residing with her father, in California. The father testified on her behalf that early in January, 1879, the defendant came to him, and after remarking that he supposed his attentions to the plaintiff must be known to the witness, went on to say that he had her consent to become his wife, and now desired the consent of her father. The consent was given, and defendant said he should go to Michigan in a few days to attend to business, but would return in the following May and remain until just before Christmas, and would then take plaintiff back as his wife, to spend the holidays with his folks. The witness was then asked whether from that time he observed whether the defendant and the plaintiff conducted themselves towards each other as though they were engaged to be married. This was objected to, but the objection was overruled, and he answered that they did. The objection to such evidence is said to be that it submits to the jury the conclusions of the witness upon the facts, instead of giving them the facts themselves, from which it is to be supposed they are as competent to draw conclusions as the witness is. Leckey v. Blosen, 24 Pa. 407. Here the fact to be proved was the mutual promise, and we agree with counsel for defendant that this ought to be made out on better evidence than the surmises and conclusions of witnesses based upon what they observed of mutual behavior. It is not their province to draw deductions from the facts, but they must submit the facts to the tribunal appointed by law to judge of them. But in this case we have something more than the deductions of the witness. His evidence upon the main issue was very important and very positive, and what he said about conduct did not so much tend to prove a promise--for which, indeed, it was not needed, if his other evidence was believed--as to show that after the promise the defendant trifled with the plaintiff's affections. The witness was not inferring a promise from conduct, but he was noting the conduct in the light of the promise which had been disclosed to him; and, in connection with his other...