2 Tenn. 233 | Tenn. | 1814
In error. — This was an action of assumpsit, brought on a promise of *234 marriage, plea non-assumpsit and issue: verdict for the defendant, who was plaintiff in the Circuit Court.
The errors assigned were, —
1st. That the defendant, at the special instance and request of the plaintiff, promised to marry the plaintiff, whereupon the plaintiff promised to do the same.
2d. The Court permitted evidence to be given, under the general issue, of seduction and getting the defendant with child.
The first exception is certainly not maintainable; in the nature of things, one promise must be the consideration of the other, and so it is stated in the declaration. It is the usual form, and must be considered correct.
In support of the second objection, it is insisted, the Court ought to have rejected the testimony, assimilating this case to the doctrine of giving evidence under the general issue, upon the usual averment ofet alia enormia. As in that case, no evidence of a nature which would afford a ground of action could be received, so in this if, under the influence of a promise of marriage, the defendant was seduced and got with child, she could maintain an action on that ground, and therefore the evidence ought to have been rejected.
The cases referred to in
Delusive it must be in general, as the idea of bottoming an action upon seduction, the plaintiff being a free agent, carries with it the appearance of indecorum (though unjustly) from which an unprejudiced verdict could scarcely be expected.
Let the judgment be affirmed.