Copyright USGenNet Inc., 2016
                           All Rights Reserved
                        USGenNet Data Repository

        Please read USGenNet Copyright Statement on this page:
                <http://www.us-data.org/fineprint.html>

Transcribed and submitted by Linda Talbott
for the USGenNet Data Repository http://www.us-data.org/
===========================================================================
Formatted by USGenNet Data Repository Chief Archivist, Linda Talbott
All of the above information must remain when copied or downloaded.
===========================================================================
The Ludington Record
Vol. XVI, Old Series, No. 40
Vol. 4, New Series, No. 3
Thursday, June 7, 1883


              The case was AUGUST ISAACSON against MARY ANN SALLOWAY.
            The place was the Manistee Circuit Court. ISAACSON, plain-
            tiff, had furnished $50 to one ANGELINE BOND, as he swore,
            on condition that she was to marry him when she got a
            divorce from her husband, her first matrimonial Bond,
            to whom she had been married four years. MRS. BOND before
            her marriage, had been the adopted daughter of Mr. and
            Mrs. SALLOWAY, and lived with them. After divorce MRS.
            BOND refused to marry ISAACSON because he went with
            another girl, and he suspected MRS. SALLOWAY had advised
            the girl to thus smash his heart all to pieces and cheat
            him out of $50 worth of Bond, and he therefore sued her
            instead of the girl or her foster father, and although
            the father, mother, and two others, swore positively
            that MRS. SALLOWAY expressly refused to in any way be-
            come responsible for MRS. BOND or the money, the intel-
            ligent jury thought poor ISAACSON should have a plaster
            for his lacerated affections, and spotted the old lady
            with a verdict of $50 to heal up his wounded heart.
              And thus it would seem that a promise of marriage by
            a married woman is a good consideration for money ad-
            vanced to secure a divorce with, and that that money
            can be collected of the wife of the man who was once
            guardian of the woman in her girlhood, even though the
            woman expressly refused to become responsible when the
            money was advanced. The newness and novelty of the law
            and the facts in the case entitle it to rank among the
            most remarkable cases of the age. - Manistee Standard.
            
==========================================================================