Yale v. Curtiss

• Decision Date: 09 February 1897
• Parties: YALE v. CURTISS.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

151 N.Y. 598

45 N.E. 1125

YALE

v.CURTISS.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 9, 1897.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, Fourth department.

Action by Nellie E. Yale against William R. Curtiss. From the affirmance of a judgment in favor of plaintiff (24 N. Y. Supp. 981), defendant appeals. Reversed.

Edward B. Thomas, for appellant.

George W. Ray, for respondent.

HAIGHT, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for a breach of promise to marry. The plaintiff, at the time of the trial, was 28 years of age, residing with her parents, in the village of Norwich. Whe was engaged in the teaching of music, and was a member and regular attendant of the choir and of the CongregationalChurch in that village. The defendant was born in Norwich, lived there until the year 1865, when he went to New York, and became a clerk in the banking office of Fiske & Hatch, and remained there for the period of 19 years. In the fall of 1884 he returned to Norwich, where he had inherited property upon the death of his father, and took up his residence with Mrs. Chapman, his sister. At the time of the trial he was 46 years of age, had received an academic education, and, upon his return to Norwich, became a member and regular attendant of the choir of the Congregational Church. On the 16th day of December, 1885, he was introduced to the plaintiff at a wedding in that village; and on or about the 1st of January thereafter he accompanied her home from an evening prayer meeting, and subsequently escorted her to a band concert. He then went to the city of New York, and remained several weeks. After his return to Norwich, he again accompanied her home in the evening from church and prayer meeting, from time to time, during the spring and fall of that year, and occasionally during the summer, and these attentions continued through the year 1887, and until the early spring of 1888. He also escorted her to three entertainments during the spring of 1886, three more during the winter of 1886 and 1887, and one in the early spring of 1888. He also took her out riding on one or two occasions. After walking home with her, he often entered the house upon her invitation, and visited with her in the parlor until 10 or 11 o'clock, but never remaining after that hour. He did not always escort her home when he met her at church. On some occasions he escorted other young ladies, and did not always accept her invitation to go in upon reaching her home. He never called upon the plaintiff at her house except when he called to take her to the entertainments mentioned, and the occasions on which he accompanied her home from church. In the spring of 1888 he made the acquaintance of a Miss Hall in that village, and began paying his addresses to her. He escorted her to a banquet and other entertainments, and in June announced his engagement to her, and in the spring of 1889 they were married. There was never any express offer of marriage made by the defendant to the plaintiff, or an acceptance by her. It is claimed, however, that such offer and acceptance should be inferred from what was said and done. We shall therefore specifically call attention to the conversations from which it is claimed that a mutual promise to marry was understood between them. At the first time he accompanied the plaintiff home from prayer meeting in January, 1886, he spoke about the plaintiff being a friend of a Mr. Bishop who lived in New York, and of her being there the winter previous, and said: ‘I am going to New York soon, and I wish you were there this winter, instead of last, because I would like to accompany you to entertainments which I am expecting to enjoy when I am there.’ In the summer of 1887, their minister, a Mr. Upton, was going to Europe. On one occasion, when the defendant was accompanying the plaintiff from church, he remarked that Mr. Upton was very anxious that he should accompany him to Europe, but he said that he preferred to wait until another year; that he would like to remain longer than Mr. Upton was going to remain. At this, the plaintiff stated that she had not any particular desire to go to Europe, on account of her fear of crossing the water. Nothing more was said upon the subject until they reached her home, at which time the defendant said: ‘Honestly and truly, would you allow the fear of the water to prevent you from going if you could go just as well as not?’ The plaintiff made no direct reply to this question, but after a little said that it would be very lonesome for Mr. Upton to go alone, and that she thought it would be much pleasanter for him to go in a party, to which he replied: ‘Husband and wife is party enough for me if I go.’ On another occasion, in the year 1888, at the time the defendant took the plaintiff out riding, we are told that they drove down South Broad street, and that, in passing down the street, he pointed out two vacant lots, and asked her which location she liked best. He made no further remark with reference to the lots on that occasion, but on a former occasion he had remarked to her that he was going to build the nicest house in Norwich. On several occasions, when the plaintiff had invited him in after he had accompanied her from church, he declined, saying he was going to make her a long visit some time, or by and by. When he first commenced going with her, he made the remark several times that he would like to take her to entertainments which she would enjoy most. This is substantially the history of their courtship, as detailed by the plaintiff, until the defendant had commenced keeping the company of Miss Hall, in the spring of 1888. She then tells us that her mother told her of a remark that she had heard to the effect that the defendant had only been going with her to please himself, and to see how great a fool he could make of her. After hearing this, she met the defendant at church, and told him that she would like to have an interview with him. He thereupon asked if he should accompany her home, and she consented. She says that this occurred on the 15th or 20th of May. After they reached the house, she invited him in, and he entered, and took a seat. She then repeated to him what she had heard, and asked him if it was true. He said: ‘No; I would be a beast of a man to go with a young lady for such a purpose as that.’ He further stated that he admired her from the very first; that he sought her acquaintance; that it was her face and eyes that he admired; that he had found her to be what her face represented; and that he had never met a young lady that he regarded more highly. To this the plaintiff replied: ‘Had I not regarded you as highly as you did me, I never would have accepted your attentions as long as I have.’ He then remarked that he knew it; that he longed to make her happy; that he did not know what he would not do to rescue her from trouble; and that he would always protect her. He further stated that, if the people were saying these unpleasant things about him, he would give up prayer meeting...