Boigneres v. Boulon

54 Cal. 146
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1880·No. No. 6,075·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Department No. 1, by the Court (from the Bench):

The only evidence in respect to the alleged promise of marriage is the testimony of the plaintiff herself. She declares— such is the effect of her language—that the only consideration for the promise was that she should continue the immoral and illegal relation toward defendant, as his mistress, which she had held previous to the promise. This is only saying that he promised to' marry her at some date not mentioned, if she would continue to surrender her person to him as she had done in the past.

It has been held, and we think correctly, that such promise or surrender on the part of the woman is not sufficient consideration for a promise of marriage, because immoral, illegal, and against public policy. On the authority of Hanks v. Naglee, November Term, 1879, the judgment must be affirmed. So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Boigneres v. Boulon, 54 Cal. 146 (Cal. 1880).

54 Cal. 146 (Boigneres v. Boulon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Murphy v. Davis
65 P.2d 917 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
Gagush v. Hoeft
164 N.W. 400 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1917)
Salemonson v. Thompson
101 N.W. 320 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1904)
Saxon v. Wood
30 N.E. 797 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1892)