Whalen v. Layman
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Scott, J.
In an action for a breach of promise of marriage, the plaintiff offered proof of seduction. The defendant objected; but the Court overruled the objection, and permitted the evidence to go to the jury; and there was a verdict for the plaintiff below for 100 dollars. The admission of evidence of seduction is complained of by the plaintiff in error, and this is the only point in the case. There is no error here. The evidence was proper for the consideration of the jury, and the Court acted correctly in admitting it. 2 Stark. Ev. 942, n. 1, —Paul v. Frazier, 3 Mass. R. 73.—Boynton v. Kellogg, id. 189 . The contrary was decided in the case of Burks v. Shain, 2 Bibb, 341 ; but that case is not supported by any other decision within our knowledge.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent, damages and costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.