BREACH OF PROMISE TO :\ IARRY. Either party to a valid contract to marry can maintain an action for damages against the other party for an inexcusable breach of the engagement. If the contract is between a minor (q.v.) and an adult, the former may recover for its breach, but the latter cannot: because a minor's contracts are voidable by hiin. It appears to be settled in Eng land that bodily infirmity or unfitness of the de fendant will not excuse his or her breach of this contract, although it will warrant the other party in refusing to perform the contract. In the United States it has been held that in curable physical unfitness for the marital rela tion, arising subsequent to the betrothnient, is a legal excuse for refusing to marry. If one party induces the other to enter into a contract to marry by fraudulent representations, the party defrauded may maintain an action in tort for the damages sustained. lint ordinarily an action for breach of promise is a eontraet action. although it has many of the characteristics of a tort action. For example: at common the
right of action does not survive the death of either party to the contract, in the absence of special damage to the personal estate of the de ceased, sueli as expenditures made in contempla tion of marriage and lost by reason of the breach; the plaintiff may recover punitive damages (see DAMAGES ) ; under many statutes, the de fendant is liable to arrest (q.v.) as though he were charged with fraud, and if a judgment is recovered against him, execution (q.v.) may issue against his body. Lord Mansfield was of the opinion that actions for breach of promise to marry 'should be looked upon with a jealous eve,' and repeated attempts have been made in England to abolish them by act of Parliament. Although these attempts have been unsuccessful, it is declared by English writers that breach-of promise snits have not borne as abundant har vests in England as in the United States. See 'MARRIAGE; BETROTIIAL and TORT; and the au thorities there referred to.