The Widow, the Ranch, and the Groom Who Lost His Nerve
A Woodinville bachelor agrees to marry a persistent widow, takes her $1.50 for the license—then cannot bring himself to ask for one, setting off a new $10,000 breach-of-promise fight.
There seems to be nothing but continuous woe in store for the aged wooers of Woodinville. A few days will witness a revival of the $10,000 breach of promise suit by Mary E. Clapsadle, the pining widow who has just passed the half-century milestone on life's journey, against Charles W. Eastabrook, her senior by a few months. Readers of the Post-Intelligencer will recall that shortly before the holidays Mrs. Clapsadle began a similar suit against her derelict Charles, but the proceedings suddenly came to naught. The reasons for the step have just come to light.
In Woodinville everyone knows just what was done. The nominal consideration for the compromise, which was effected on the last day of the old year, was the payment of all costs by Eastabrook and the delivery to Mrs. Clapsadle of his promissory note for $15. To the ordinary spectator the price was a very small one for a broken heart; but sub rosa, Mrs. Clapsadle was amply justified in signing the agreement, for it was understood by the parties that Eastabrook was to marry her on demand. To reflect on the compromise was no doubt agreeable to the solicitous widow, for she was thereby spared the mortification of parading her sorrows before the court and was also assured of the $10,000—together with her Charles.
Conformably to the implied terms of the stipulation, it is related that the repentant bachelor, beginning the bright new year by turning over a new leaf, betook himself on January 1 to the side of his smiling sweetheart, and again poured into her attentive ear the oft-repeated tale of love. With a heart almost bursting with joy she accepted him, and as they tenderly and confidingly talked of the consummation of their hopes, which in truth had been too long deferred, they mutually felt that there should be no more delay; for experience had taught them the danger and sorrow attendant upon procrastination, the thief of their happiness.
The outcome of the reconciliation was that Charles should at once get a marriage license; and to hurry him along the widow advanced $1.50 to pay his fare to this city and the fee for the license. With bounding step and brightened eye, he can be imagined hurrying up the hill to the court house, but once there, his courage failed him. He entered the auditor's office, and that was all. To ask for a license was too much, and he went back to Woodinville with the doleful message to Mary that it was no use; he could not marry her, and so informed Rev. Mr. Crumley, who engineered the former compromise.
This resolution on the part of Mr. Eastabrook was followed by a still more decisive step. In a few days there was filed for record with the auditor a deed to the Estabrook ranch, whereby all right and title, in consideration of $1 and support for life, was conveyed to Alma McPherson, a married sister of the grantor.
Mrs. Clapsadle is not so easily foiled, however. She has brought another suit for breach of promise, founded on the offer to marry on demand, made at the beginning of the new year; and further, she has caused an attachment to issue against the property to enforce payment of the $150 note given in settlement of the first action. Her attorneys have already served the papers, and feel confident that they can yet bring the reluctant and fickle Charles to terms.
“To ask for a license was too much, and he went back to Woodinville with the doleful message to Mary that it was no use; he could not marry her.”
Breach-of-promise suits were once a serious legal remedy in a society where marriage was an economic arrangement as much as a romantic one. The Woodinville case—a $10,000 claim, a small note, and a ranch deeded to a sister—reads like a modern small-claims fight over a broken commitment, but it also shows how much property and reputation could hinge on a wedding promise.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.