Clark v. Pendleton

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut · Contracts

ContractsBreach of promise to marryStatute of Fraudspromise to marryon requestgeneral promisespecified future eventsubsequent arrangement

Facts

The declaration included counts alleging a promise by the defendant to marry the plaintiff on request and other counts alleging a promise to marry after his return from a contemplated voyage. The contract was not in writing, and there was no direct evidence of an express promise; instead, the plaintiff relied on the parties' conduct and the defendant's admissions. Testimony from the plaintiff's sister and her husband recounted the defendant's statements that the parties had thought of marrying before he sailed but had concluded to postpone marriage until his return because he had to leave sooner than expected. The jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff.

Issue

Whether evidence showing a general engagement to marry, followed by a later agreement to postpone the ceremony until after the defendant's voyage, supports counts alleging a promise to marry on request. The court also considered whether such a later arrangement creates a new contract within the statute of frauds and whether the verdict and damages should be disturbed.

Rule

A promise of marriage stated generally, without a specified time, is construed as a promise to marry on request. Proof of a later arrangement fixing the time of performance of that existing general promise does not alone establish a new and superseding contract; only a distinct later agreement inconsistent with the first would annul it. An oral agreement to marry after return from a voyage is not within the statute of frauds unless it appears from the contract's own terms that it was not to be performed within one year.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Maya Benton and Leo Garner become engaged after several months of courtship. Neither mentions any wedding date or condition, but a year later Leo refuses to marry after Maya asks him to set a date.

If Maya sues on a count alleging an oral promise to marry on request, which is the strongest analysis?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a promise of marriage stated generally, without specifying a particular time for celebration, is construed as a promise to marry on request. Thus proof of a general engagement supports a count alleging a promise to marry on request even without those exact words. (Derived from Clark v. Pendleton (n.d.).)