Foot v. Card

• Decision Date: 13 September 1889
• Citation: 58 Conn. 1,18 A. 1027
• Parties: FOOT v. CARD.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

18 A. 1027

58 Conn. 1

FOOT

v. CARD.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Sept. 13, 1889.

Case reserved from superior court, New Haven county.

Action by Laura L. Foot against Maria D. Card, for alienation of the affection of plaintiff's husband and loss of his society.

C. H. Fowler, for plaintiff. C. S. Hamilton, for defendant.

PARDEE, J. The plaintiff alleges that in the year 1872 she was living happily with, and in the enjoyment of the conjugal affection and society of, her husband, Eons Foot; that in that year the defendant, by her arts, blandishments, and persuasion, induced the said Eons Foot to begin, and from thence hitherto to continue, an adulterous intercourse with her; and that she thereby alienated from the plaintiff his conjugal affection, induced him to deny to her his conjugal society, and persuaded him to abandon her. She asks damages for these injuries. The defendant pleads in abatement that the plaintiff and her husband are still living together, and that he should have been made co-plaintiff. The plaintiff, demurring to this plea, admits, for the purpose of the question before us, that she is still living with her husband. For further defense, the defendant demurs to the complaint as follows: "(1) The matters and allegations contained in the plaintiff's complaint are insufficient in the law to constitute any cause of action against the defendant. (2) Because it is alleged in said complaint, and appears there from, that the plaintiff is a married woman, the wife of one Eons Foot, and has been the wife of said Eons ever since the year 1872, and for many years previous thereto, and, as such married woman, she cannot, either alone or jointly with said Eons, her husband, maintain this action; nor can she, as such married woman, maintain any action for any of the supposed causes of action set forth in the complaint; nor can she, as such married woman, recover any damages against this defendant for any of the acts alleged to have been done in the complaint, or for the money so alleged to have been expended, as therein set forth; nor has she, as such wife, any claim or cause of action against the defendant for any of the alleged acts set forth in the complaint. (3) The relation of husband and wife does not give the plaintiff any cause of action at law for any of the alleged acts set forth in the complaint. (4) The plaintiff has no right, title, or interest in the supposed causes of action set forth in the complaint. (5) The alleged acts set forth in the complaint could only have been done by the voluntary assistance and co-operation of the said Eons Foot; and for his immoral conduct the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff. (6) No legal cause of action could accrue from the facts set forth in the complaint, because it appears that the said Eons, the plaintiff's said husband, was equally guilty with the defendant in the doing of the alleged acts. (7) The plaintiff alone cannot maintain this action; but the said Eons is a necessary party to this action, if any cause of action exists. (8) It does not appear from said complaint that the supposed wrongs and injuries which the plaintiff is said to have suffered resulted from acts of the defendant; but it does appear that the same, if any there are, resulted directly from the voluntary, immoral, and adulterous conduct of the said Eons Foot. (9) No action for criminal conversation is at common law maintainable by a married woman against another woman; and it is not alleged, and does not appear, that this pretended action is founded upon any statute authorizing it; and there is in fact no statute authorizing it." For the sole purpose of testing the sufficiency of the pleadings the defendant admits by her demurrer that from 1872 to this present time she has alienated from the plaintiff the conjugal affection of her husband, induced him to withhold from her his conjugal society, and herself has since lived in continual adultery with him. She denies, however, that the law has any form or mode of redress for this wrong. The case is reserved for the advice of this court as to the judgment to be rendered.

So far forth as the husband is concerned, from time immemorial the law has regarded his right to the conjugal affection and society of his wife as a valuable property, and has compelled the man who has injured it to make compensation. Whatever inequalities of right as to property may result from the marriage contract, husband and wife are equal in rights in one respect, namely, each owes to the other the fullest possible measure of conjugal affection and society, the husband to the wife all that the wife owes to him. Upon principle, this right in the wife is equally valuable to hr, as property, as is that of the husband to him. Her right being the same as his in kind, degree, and value, there would seem to be no valid reason why the law should deny to her the redress which it affords to him. But, from...