Bailey v. Kennedy
| Decision Date | 11 May 1910 |
| Parties | BAILEY v. KENNEDY. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Cedar County; W. N. Treichler, Judge.
This is an action for damages for alleged alienation of affections of the plaintiff's wife. There was a directed verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Geo. C. Hoover, Ranck & Bradley, and Tillman Todd, for appellant.
Baker, Ball & Ball, J. H. Preston, J. T. Moffit, and Charles E. Mather, for appellee.
George C. Sanger was the original defendant. Shortly after the commencement of the suit, he died, and his administratrix was duly substituted. In the discussion of the case it will be more convenient for us to refer to Sanger, whose acts are called in question, as the “defendant,” rather than his administratrix. The plaintiff alleged in his petition that about nine years previous the defendant “did by protestations of love and affection, undue influence, and other means, alienate the affection of the wife of the plaintiff.” He also alleged that the defendant induced the wife to refuse to return to plaintiff or to live with him, and that the defendant lived and cohabited with her as his wife, and so continued down to the time of the filing of the petition. These allegations were all denied in the answer. The petition was filed in April, 1907. The defendant died in June, 1907, and before the cause was reached for trial.
Under the issues as made, the burden was upon the plaintiff to show: (1) That the conduct of the defendant did result in alienating from plaintiff the affections of his wife; and (2) that such conduct of the defendant was in itself wrongful, or, if not wrongful in itself, that it was done with intent to alienate the affections of plaintiff's wife.
In advance of trial some depositions were taken on behalf of the defendant. These were all introduced in evidence by plaintiff in his main case. The motion to direct the verdict was made at the close of the plaintiff's evidence. The story as disclosed by the evidence is a brief one. The plaintiff was a stepson of the defendant; his mother having married the defendant during the plaintiff's childhood. Out of this marriage a son and a daughter were born. The substituted defendant's administratrix is such daughter. Shortly prior to 1900, the defendant's wife, plaintiff's mother, died. The defendant and his wife were at that time living in South Dakota, whither the defendant had moved from Cedar county some time prior. After the death of his wife, the defendant moved back to Cedar county where he owned a farm. On one corner of this farm was a small dwelling occupied by the plaintiff and his wife. The defendant boarded with them for a short period. In the fall of 1900, the defendant moved into the main dwelling house upon the farm and employed the plaintiff and his wife to work for him there. The plaintiff's work lasted through corn husking. Thereafter the plaintiff went away. He testified that he left because the defendant would not employ him any longer, and that his wife would not leave because she had promised to work for the defendant until the 1st of March. In 1901 the plaintiff returned to the employment of the defendant and worked for him for some months and until February or March, 1902, at which time the defendant held a public sale upon his farm disposing of his personal property, as we understand the record. The plaintiff testified that during this period his wife refused to occupy the same room with him. After the public sale, the defendant left the farm, and the plaintiff and his wife went their way. The defendant went to the home of his married daughter at West Branch. The plaintiff's wife went to the home of her mother and did not live with the plaintiff after they left the defendant's farm. The evidence discloses no further association between the defendant and plaintiff's wife until 1903. In 1903 the defendant purchased a dwelling in the town of West Branch and occupied the same as his home. For a time a niece of his married daughter lived with him. Later he employed his daughter-in-law, plaintiff's wife, and she continued as his housekeeper down to the time of his death, a period of about four years. During this period the defendant visited his son in South Dakota, where he had formerly lived. Later the son removed to Idaho, and the defendant visited him there. The daughter-in-law accompanied him on each of these visits; the West Branch home being locked up in the meantime. The son so visited is a half-brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff introduced in evidence depositions of such son and his wife and others who had opportunity to observe the demeanor of the defendant and his daughter-in-law, and all this testimony was distinctly adverse to the plaintiff's contentions. The defendant was an old man, partly paralyzed as to one hand, and 74 years of age at the time of his death. The testimony introduced by the plaintiff wholly fails to show any criminality in the relations between the defendant and plaintiff's wife, or any circumstances from which an inference of criminality could fairly be drawn by the jury. On the contrary, such testimony makes a strong affirmative showing adverse to the claims of the plaintiff in this respect.
The question for our consideration is reduced, therefore, to the inquiry whether there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could properly find that the conduct of the defendant was wrongful in the sense that it did result in separating the plaintiff from his...
To continue reading
Request your trial