Mr Shadwell was engaged to marry Ellen Nicholl (this is a binding contract).

My dear L, I am glad to hear of your intended marriage with Ellen Nicholl, and, as I promised to assist you at starting, I am happy to tell you that I will pay to you 150l yearly during my life time and until your annual income from your profession of a chancery barrister shall amount to 600 guineas, of which your own admission will be the only evidence that I shall receive or require.

When I answer this in the affirmative, I am aware that a man's marriage with the woman of his choice is in one sense a boon, and in that sense the reverse of a loss: yet, as between the plaintiff and the party promising to supply an income to support the marriage, it may well be also a loss.

The plaintiff may have made a most material change in his position, and induced the object of his affection to do the same, and may have incurred pecuniary liabilities resulting in embarrassments which would be in every sense a loss if the income which had been promised should be withheld; and, if the promise was made in order to induce the parties to marry, the promise so made would be in legal effect a request to marry.

In answering again in the affirmative, I am at liberty to consider the relation in which the parties stood and the interest in the settlement of his nephew which the uncle declares.

The marriage primarily affects the parties thereto; but in "a secondary degree it may be an object of interest to a near relative, and in that sense "a benefit to him.

No case shewing a strong analogy to the present was cited: but the importance of enforcing promises which have been made to induce parties to marry has been often recognized; and the cases cited, of Montefiori v Montefiori, 1 W. Bl.

I do not feel it necessary to advert to the numerous authorities referred to in the learned arguments addressed to us, because the decision turns upon the question of fact, whether the consideration for the promise is proved as pleaded.

Marriage of the plaintiff at the testator's express request would be no doubt an ample consideration.

If it be said that such an accident is an involuntary mischief, would it have been a binding promise if, the testator had said: "I will give you 100l.

Now, the testator in the case before the court derived, so far as appears, no personal benefit from the marriage.