Parrish v. Parrish

Citations

• 67 Kan. 323
• 72 P. 844
• 1903 Kan. LEXIS 254

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Breach oe Promise — Present, New and Independent Promise. In an action for the breach of a contract to marry, it appeared that in February, 1901, the parties had agreed to marry in March, 1902. Iñ June, 1901, they had a conversation in which the plaintiff said to the defendant: “Do you intend to marry me as you promised, or are you making a fool of me ? ” To which defendant replied: “I intend to marry you as I promised. In March we will go on the farm and live right. I will either buy or build.” Meld, that under all the facts of the case the jury were warranted in finding that the latter part of defendant’s statement constituted a present, new and independent promise, and not a mere declaration of a continuing obligation previously incurred.</p> <p>2. -Evidence of Previous Contract. In an action for the breach of a contract to marry, it is not error to admit in evidence, in corroboration of direct testimony of an express contract between the parties, a previous contract of marriage included in their past intercourse with each other.</p> <p>3., ■-- Pule Explained and Distinguished. The rule referred to in the preceding paragraph does not forbid the court from excluding testimony only remotely affecting the latest relations of the parties, although involved in their previous intercourse, and does not compel the court to permit the complete rehabilitation of all the minute details of a long-past association which could be of no material aid in elucidating the issues on trial.</p> <p>á. Practice, District Court — Argument to Jury. The court cannot be required to instruct the jury in advance of the argument upon the province of counsel in arguing the cause.</p>