Allard v. La Plain

• Decision Date: 14 April 1928
• Docket Number: 21002.
• Citation: 147 Wash. 497,266 P. 688
• Parties: ALLARD v. LA PLAIN.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

266 P. 688

147 Wash. 497

ALLARD v. LA PLAIN.

No. 21002.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 14, 1928

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Whatcom County; Ed E. Harden, Judge.

Action by Annie Allard against Lillie A. La Plain. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

R. W Greene and Sather & Livesey, both of Bellingham, for appellant.

F. M Hamilton and H. C. Thompson, both of Bellingham, for respondent.

PARKER J.

On February 16, 1926, the plaintiff, Mrs. Allard, commenced this action in the superior court for Whatcom county, seeking recovery upon a judgment rendered in her favor against the defendant, Mrs. La Plain, by the Supreme Judicial Court of the state of Maine, for Sagadahoc county. The complaint does not allege the nature of the claim upon which the judgment was rendered by the Maine court, but subsequent pleadings render it plain that the plaintiff sought recovery upon the theory that the judgment of the Maine court was rendered for damages suffered by her as the result of the defendant having willfully and maliciously alienated the affections of her husband, who was a brother of the defendant. This particular issue came into the case by the defendant pleading, as an affirmative defense, her bankruptcy proceeding pending in the United States court for this district and the plaintiff's reply to that defense; thus bringing into the case the question, among others, of whether of not the liability evidenced by the judgment of the Maine court is a liability dischargeable in bankruptcy. This action proceeded to trial in the superior court, sitting with a jury. At the conclusion of the introduction of all of the evidence, counsel for the defendant moved for a judgment of dismissal, insisting that the court should so dispose of the case as a matter of law. This motion was by the court overruled. Counsel for the plaintiff then moved for an instructed verdict, awarding to her recovery for the balance due upon the judgment of the Maine court, insisting that the court should so dispose of the case as a matter of law. This motion was granted, and on April 9, 1927, final judgment was rendered accordingly, awarding to the plaintiff recovery against the defendant in the sum of $7,585.73, the balance due upon the Maine judgment, that being the balance due thereon after deducting the amount the plaintiff admitted having been paid thereon, there being no evidence of any greater amount having been paid thereon. From this disposition of the case by the superior court, the defendant has appealed to this court.

In view of the contentions made in bahalf of appellant, Mrs. La Plain, it seems necessary for us to here quote the entire document introduced in evidence in behalf of respondent, Mrs Allard, as evidencing the judgment of the Maine court here sued upon. That document, including its certification, reads as follows:

'State of Maine.

'Sagadahoc--ss.: Supreme Judicial Court.

'At a term of the Supreme Judicial Court, begun and held at Bath, within and for the county of Sagadahoc, on the third Tuesday of October, Anno Domini one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five, being the twentieth day of said month.

'The Honorable Scott Wilson, Chief Justice, Presiding.

4127.

'Annie Allard of Richmond, in the County of Sagadahoc and State of Maine, Plaintiff, against Lillie A. La Plain of Lewiston, in the County of Androscoggin and State of Maine Defendant.

'In a plea of the case for that the plaintiff, on the 29th day of November, 1916, at Richmond, in the state of Maine, was lawfully married to Bert Allard of said Richmond, who is the brother of the defendant; that at all times since the said marriage the said Bert Allard and the plaintiff have been and now are husband and wife; that by reason of said marriage the plaintiff became and was entitled to the support, company, and society of her said husband; that from and after the time of said marriage, and until the interference on the part of the defendant hereinafter set forth, the said Bert Allard was deeply attached to his said wife, the plaintiff, and the plaintiff and her said husband lived happily together as husband and wife, and but for the wrongful and malicious acts of the defendant, hereinafter set forth, would have continued so to live together; that the defendant, unjustly and craftily contriving and wickedly intending to injure the plaintiff, and to deprive her of the aid, comfort, and society of her said husband, and to alienate his affections from her, heretofore, on the 1st day of January, 1922, and on divers other days between that day and the day of the purchase of this writ, wrongfully and maliciously sought to prejudice the mind of said Bert Allard against the plaintiff, and alienate his affections from her by subtle contrivances, coaxing, flattery, threats, warnings, slanderous statements about the plaintiff, and wrongful suggestions and misrepresentations of various kinds, to entice him to separate himself from the plaintiff and to leave and desert her, said plaintiff in no wise consenting thereto; that on the 31st day of March, 1924, the said Bert Allard was by the aforesaid enticements persuaded and induced by the defendant to desert and abandon the plaintiff and her child, and the said Bert Allard was further persuaded and induced by the defendant to bring a divorce suit against the plaintiff; that, as a result of the aforesaid arts and contrivances, slanders and misrepresentations, of the plaintiff to her said husband, the defendant has wrongfully and maliciously alienated the affections of her said husband from the plaintiff, and has wrongfully and maliciously enticed him to separate himself from her, whereby the plaintiff and her child have been deprived of the society, comfort, and support of her said husband, and the plaintiff has suffered great injury to her feelings and reputation, and the plaintiff further alleges that the facts herein alleged and the cause of action were first discovered by her within three years of the date of this writ, to the damage of the said plaintiff, as she says, the sum of $40,000.

'The writ in this action is dated June 11, A. D. 1924, and was legally served upon said defendant on the 13th day of June, A. D. 1924. And the same was duly entered at the October term, A. D. 1924, when and where the said defendant appears and defends, and when and where on the sixth day thereof the following amendment is filed in accordance with stipulation, viz.:

'Amended Declaration.

'In a plea of the case for that the plaintiff on the 29th day of November, 1916, at Richmond, in the county of Sagadahoc and state of Maine, was lawfully married to Bert Allard of said Richmond, who is the brother of the defendant; that at all times since the said marriage the said Bert Allard and the plaintiff have been and now are husband and wife; that by reason of said marriage the plaintiff became and was entitled to the aid, support, company, and society of her said husband; that from and after the time of said marriage, and until the interference on the part of the defendant hereinafter set forth, the said Bert Allard was deeply attached to his said wife, the plaintiff, and the plaintiff and her said husband lived happily together as husband and wife, and, but for the willful, wrongful, and malicious acts of the defendant, hereinafter set forth, would have continued so to live together; that the defendant, being a female person more than 18 years of age, craftily contriving and wickedly intending to injure the plaintiff, and to deprive her of the aid, comfort, and society of her said husband, and to alienate his affections from her, heretofore, on the 1st day of September, 1919, and, on divers other days between that day and the day of the purchase of this writ, willfully, wrongfully, and maliciously sought to prejudice the mind of said Bert Allard against the plaintiff, and alienate his affections from her by subtle contrivances, coaxing, flattery, threats, warnings, slanderous statements about the plaintiff, and wrongful suggestions and misrepresentations of various kinds, to entice him to separate himself from the plaintiff and to leave and desert her, said plaintiff in no wise consenting thereto; that on the 31st day of March, 1924, the said Bert Allard was by the aforesaid enticements persuaded and induced by the defendant to desert and abandon the plaintiff and her child; and the said Bert Allard was further persuaded and induced by the defendant to bring a divorce suit against the plaintiff; that, as a result of the aforesaid arts, enticements, inducements, contrivances, slanders, and misrepresentations of the plaintiff to her husband, the defendant has willfully, wrongfully, and maliciously alienated the affections of her said husband from the plaintiff, and has willfully, wrongfully, and maliciously enticed him to separate himself from her, whereby the plaintiff and her child have been deprived of the society, aid, comfort, and support of her said husband, and the plaintiff has suffered great injury to her feelings and reputation, and the plaintiff further alleges that the facts herein alleged and the cause of action were first discovered by her within three years of the date of this writ.

'Also for that the defendant, being a female person more than 18 years of age, on the 1st day of September, 1919, and on divers other days between that day and the date of this writ, unjustly contriving and maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff, alienated the affections of her husband, Bert Allard, and deprived her of the aid, comfort, and society of her said husband, Bert Allard, by willful and wrongful arts, enticements, and inducements, whereby the said husband did leave and desert his said wife, and thereby the affections of the

...