OGDEN v. OGDEN.—1 BLAND. 269

The copy now produced was seen in the hands of John W. Ogden,
as early as the month of August previous to his marriage; but how
he obtained possession of it does not appear; it has been however
proved to be an exact copy, and altogether in the hand-writing of
the late Amos Ogden.

The witnesses speak of the verbal declarations of the late Amos
Ogden of his affection for his niece Nancy; of his intention to give
* her a marriage portion; to bestow upon her some of his prop- 287
erty, or to provide for her in some way or other; and some
of the proofs describe a contract essentially different from that
deduced from the letter. But the plaintiffs cannot be allowed
to use the letter as evidence of a contract in connexion with a part
only of the verbal testimony, rejecting the rest. The whole must
be taken together; and then the verbal proof, instead of sustain-
ing, materially differs from and falsifies the terms of that contract,
which it is contended is shewn by the letter. Cooper v. Smith, 15
East, 103.

The bill rests the plaintiff''s pretensions upon the ground, that
the late Amos Ogden induced John W. Ogden to marry Nancy by
a promise, that he would give her twelve thousand dollars as a
marriage portion; and refers to the letter of the 22d of May, and
certain other circumstances, as evidence of that promise. The
defendant Amos Ogden admits, that the copy exhibited is in the
hand-writing of the late Amos Ogden; but all the defendants posi-
tively deny having any knowledge whatever of any such promise
or inducement to the marriage as is charged in the bill. None of
the defendants have, in their answers, relied upon the Statute of
Frauds; but it has been mainly insisted upon by them, in argu-
ment, at the hearing.

The Statute of Frauds, so far as it is applicable to this case, is
expressed in these words:—"No action shall be brought whereby
to charge any person, upon any agreement made upon considera-
tion of marriage, unless the agreement upon which such action
shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof shall be in
writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some
other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized." 29 Car. 2,
c. 3, s. 4.

This clause was at one time supposed to embrace mutual prom-
ises to marry, but that notion has long since been abandoned and
it is now held to extend only to agreements to pay marriage por-
tions, or to such cases as the one now under consideration. Har-
rison v. Cage, I Ld. Raym, 387. The word " agreement," it has
been settled, must not be loosely construed, but be taken in its
proper and correct sense, as signifying a mutual contract on con-
sideration between two or more parties; the whole of which, the
consideration as well as the promise, must be in writing. Wain v.