Book Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1879 edition. Excerpt: ... THE LAW OF BREACH OF PROMISE A PROMISE of Marriage is not in itself binding, DEGREES that is to say, there must be an acceptance of the promise and mutual promises of marriage. These form a contract to marry. All contracts must be founded upon a consideration; and on enquiry it is found that this species of contract discloses a consideration, which is, that the one promises to take the other to wife, if the other will take him to husband (Philpott v. Wallett, see post, page 20). Chief Justice Holt, in the case of Harrison v. Cage and Wife (see post, page 22), said the consideration for the promise is the promise of the other and acceptance of the promises by both parties. In strictness, then, what is generally known as an action of breach of promise of marriage, is in reality an action for breach of a contract of marriage. Contracts to marry must, as a general rule, be founded upon reciprocity, and an obligation on both sides to fulfil them. In such cases either of the parties may sue for the breach of the contract. An exception with regard to infants is made. These may sue for the breach though incapable of being sued for the same (i.e., he being an infant defendant, would have a good and complete defence in alleging and proving that at the time of the promise and breach he was not twenty-one years of age). The principle which governs this exception being that infancy is 1) in law considered as a personal privilege, of which no one can take advantage but the infant, and that therefore the adult party shall be bound by, although the infant may avoid the contract. The Infants' Relief Act, 37 & 38 Vic., c. 62, extends the privileges which infants enjoyed prior to 1874. All his debts and contracts, except for necessaries, are ma