Story Case

Joseph Kilroy had been giving his attentions to Anna Thompson for a considerable period and apparently a warm attachment existed between them. No express promise was ever given by one to the other to become married but apparently it was understood that an engagement existed. When Kilroy was away from Miss Thompson letters passed between them implying an engagement and referring to the time when they should be husband and wife. Suddenly, however, while Kilroy was away from their home town, he married another person and ceased his visits and correspondence to Miss Thompson. Thereupon she brought an action for breach of promise to marry. Kilroy defended on the ground that no express contract to marry existed between them. Is this a good defense?

Ruling Court Case. Wightman Vs. Coates, Volume 15 Massachusetts Reports, Page 1; Volume 8 American Decisions, Page 77

The defendant herein promised to marry the plaintiff, but before the time set for the marriage the defendant had rendered the performance of his promise impossible in that he had married another woman. It was contended by the counsel for the defendant, in defense to an action brought by the plaintiff for breach of his promise that such an action should not be permitted. _ _

Mr. Chief Justice Parker, in answer to this contention of the defendant, said in part:

"We can conceive of no more suitable application to the tribunal of justice for compensation, than that of a violated promise to enter into a contract of marriage, on the faithful performance of which the interest of all civilized countries so essentially depends. When two parties of suitable age to contract, agree to pledge their faith to each other and thus withdraw themselves from that intercourse with society, which might probably lead to a similar connection with another, the affection being so far interested as to render a subsequent engagement not probable or desirable, and one of the parties wantonly, and capriciously refuses to execute the contract, the injury may be serious and circumstances may often justify a claim of pecuniary indemnification. When the female is the injured party, there is generally more reason for a resort to the laws than when the man is the sufferer. Both have a right of action, but the jury will discriminate and apportion the damages to the injury sustained."

It is not necessary that express promises exist between them. A mutual engagement must be proved to support the action; but it may be proved by those circumstances which usually accompany such relationships. The jury may infer from the letters of the defendant, as well as his conduct that an engagement existed. The plaintiff therefore can recover.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

. An engagement entered into by a man and woman to become husband and wife at some future day is a contract in the full sense of the word. The consideration for the contract is the mutual promise of each. That is, the law holds that the promise of the man to marry in the future is a legal detriment, and likewise, the promise of the woman. Therefore they are bound to each other in a legal obligation, the wrongful breach of which by one, gives the other an action for damages. It is not necessary that the contract be expressed. It may be inferred from the conduct of the parties, or implied from their correspondence. In the Story Case, Kilroy is liable to Miss Thompson in damages for breach of contract.