8 How. Pr. 504 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1853
I must admit that I never was very strongly impressed with the correctness of the decisi'on in Williams agt. Miller, (4 How. 94,) where it was held that an action for a breach of promise of marriage fell under the first subdivision of section 129, as being on a contract for the recovery of money only. On the contrary, it seemed to me that the contract was for something quite different; and indeed, that money did not enter into it, directly, at all. Nor do I suppose that the plaintiff should be permitted to take judgment without
But this case does not stand upon the same ground as those above cited. It will, therefore, be unnecessary to determine whether they are to be followed.
In this case the contract provides expressly for the payment of $200, as the liquidated damages, and there can be no reason for saying that it does not fall within the clause above mentioned.
The motion to set aside summons must be granted, with leave to plaintiffs to amend the same within twenty days, on payment of five dollars costs.