T C W SKIPP Vs. LMKELLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an action by a lady for breach of promise of marriage against the defendant, The case was tried by the District Judge of the Civil and Military Station, Bangalore. He formulated the following issue : "Was there a valid contract of marriage ? " Their lordships think perhaps the expression there used ought rather to have been whether there was a definite promise of marriage, because the expression "contract of marriage" is usually used in another sense, but it is quite plain what he actually meant. He found that issue in favour of the plaintiff. He then went on with another issue : If there was such a valid contract, did the defendant or the plaintiff break it either expressly or impliedly?" He found that issue also in favour of the plaintiff. When the case went to appeal the learned Resident in Mysore found that the engagement did subsist up to the time of the defendant's marriage with another lady, and therefore a breaking of the contract was necessarily inferred.

(2.) The point was taken by the plaintiff, the respondent in the main appeal, that these two findings, being concurrent findings of fact, cannot be interfered with, and, to a certain extent, their lordshipa think that is true, but at the same time the defendant put forward what he considered a legal plea, because he said that upon a proper consideration of the promise which had been held proved, that promise was not a promise which could be recognised in law, because it was merely a ratification of a void promise which had been made before.

(3.) That plea arises upon these facts. It is undoubtedly the case that the defendant first promised to marry the plaintiff when, as a matter of fact, she was a married woman. It was understood between them that a divorce was going to take place, and a divorce afterwards did take place : but it has been quite well settled, and no one cm doubt the law upon the subject, that a promise made in such circumstances is a void promise. Nevertheless, the parties considered themselves as engaged persons, behaved as engaged persons, and, though their lordships need not go through the various circumstances of the case, it is certain that after the divorce proceedings had gone through, and consequently the plaintiff became a free woman the defendant bought her a ring and actually arranged the date on which they were to be married.