In an action for breach of promise of marriage, the court will not interfere with the discretion of the jury as to the amount of damages, unless there has been some obvious error or misconception on their part, or it is made apparent that they have been actuated by improper motives ; 1 C. B. N. S. 660; Waters v. Bristol, 26 Conn. 398. And if the defendant has undertaken to rest his defence, in whole or in part, on the general bad character or the criminal conduct of the plaintiff, and fails altogether in the proof, the jury may take this into consideration as enhancing the damages; Southard v. Rex ford, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 254; Davis v. Slagle, 27 Mo. 600.
Loss of opportunity during the engage ment to contract marriage with another is an element of damage; Hiveley v. Gollnick (Minn.) 144 N. W. 213.
A very large discretion is given to the jury as to damages; Pollock, Torts 184; and dam ages are often given which are, in fact, ex emplary ; L. R. 1 C. P. 331. The amount awarded is usually estimated according to plaintiff's loss of reputation, wealth, social position, and prospects in life, as well as the endurance of mortification, pain, or disgrace; Giese v. Schultz, 53 Wis. 462, 10 N. W. 598; Wilbur v. Johnson, 58 Mo. 600; Vanderpool Richardson, 52 Mich. 336, 17 N. W. 936.
Where such an action is brought by a wo man, she may prove, in aggravation of dam ages, that the defendant, under color of a promise of marriage, has seduced her ; Ben nett v. -Beam, 42 Mich. 346, 4 N. W. 8, 36 Am. Rep. 442; Leavitt v. Cutler, 37 Wis. 40; Sauer v. Schulenberg, 33 Md. 288, 3 Am. Rep. 174 ; L. R. 1 C. P. 331; Daggett v. Wallace, 75 Tex. 352, 13 S. W. 49, 16 Am. St. Rep. 908.
But see, contra, Weaver v. Bachert, 2 Pa. 80, 44 Am. Dec. 159, commented on in Baldy v. Stratton, 11 Pa. 316 ; Perkins v. Hersey, 1 R. I. 493. And misconduct, showing that the plaintiff would be an unfit companion in married life, may be given in evidence in mitigation of damages ; Button v. McCauley, 1 Abb. Prac. (N. Y.) 282. The defendant may show that his failure to marry the plaintiff proceeded from opposition by his mother to the marriage; Johnson v. Jenkins, 24 N. Y. 252; or that he was afflicted with an incurable disease at the time of his breach of the promise to marry, in mitigation of damages; Mabin v. Webster, 129 Ind. 430, 28 N. E. 863, 28 Am. St. Rep. 199. Evidence that the general character of the plaintiff for chastity previously to the engagement was bad, is admissible in mitigation of dam ages; Van Storch v. Griffin, 71 Pa.. 240; Cole v. Holliday, 4 Mo. App. 94; so is indelicate conduct (not criminal) of plaintiff before the promise was made; Palmer v. Andrews, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 142. Evidence of the de fendant's financial standing is admissible: Bennett v. Beam, 42 Mich. 346, 4 N. W. 8, 36 Am. Rep. 442; Fisher v. Oliver, 172 Mo. App. 18, 154 S. W. 453 ; so of his social position; Schoul. Husb. & W. § 49.
An action for breach of promise of mar riage lies against a decedent's estate, where the father of the woman, learning that she was pregnant, killed the promisor ; Johnson v. Levy, 122 La. 118, 47 South. 422, 16 Ann. Cas. 978.
See Schoul. Husb. & W. § 40 ; Maccola, Breach of Promise; Bishop, M. & D. ch. xi ; BETROTHMENT ; WEDDING.