Boom v. Boom, No. 38685.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtDE GRAFF
Citation206 Iowa 70,220 N.W. 17
PartiesBOOM v. BOOM ET AL.
Docket NumberNo. 38685.
Decision Date26 June 1928

206 Iowa 70
220 N.W. 17

BOOM
v.
BOOM ET AL.

No. 38685.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 26, 1928.


Appeal from District Court, Dubuque County; D. E. Maguire, Judge.

Action by plaintiff for damages for alleged alienation of her husband's affections. The defense was a general denial and the plea that, if there was any alienation of the affections of plaintiff's husband, the same was due to the fault of the plaintiff herself. Cause was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict of $6,000 jointly against the defendants, father, mother, and brother of the husband of plaintiff. Motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment was entered upon the verdict. The defendants appeal. Reversed.

[220 N.W. 18]

W. T. Evans, of Parkersburg, and M. H. Czizek, of Dubuque, for appellants.

Frank McGreevy, of Ackley, and Hurd, Lenehan, Smith & O'Connor, of Dubuque, for appellee.


DE GRAFF, J.

The petition in this case, in substance, alleges that, shortly after the marriage between the plaintiff, Celia Boom, and George Boom, Jr., the defendants, father, mother, and brother of plaintiff's husband, and each of them, acting in concert and working to a common end, maliciously, unlawfully, and wrongfully sought to prejudice plaintiff's husband against her and to alienate his affections from her; that, by means of conversations with plaintiff's husband and suggestions made by the defendants individually to the plaintiff in the presence of her and her husband, and suggestions made to the husband, and by interfering by advice and criticism and attempts to manage and control the household affairs of plaintiff and her husband, and to manage, control, and dictate the policy of the husband and the plaintiff with respect to work around the farm and in the field, where the plaintiff's husband should go and not go, what he should do and not do, and by insinuation and innuendo against the plaintiff, endeavoring to prevent plaintiff and her husband from living together in peace by themselves and so preventing them, and by statements made to him of a false, defamatory, and slanderous nature concerning her character and reputation, sought to poison his mind against her; that such statements and acts were for the purpose of inducing the husband to leave the wife and to live with defendants; that, for the purpose of bringing about such separation, defendants obtained control of her husband's affections, and so dominated his conduct and thoughts as to wholly alienate the husband's affections from plaintiff; that the acts, conduct, and statements made by defendants were wrongful and malicious and done for the malicious purpose of separating plaintiff's husband from her and alienating his affections.

[220 N.W. 19]

The evidence is directly conflicting as to the material facts and issues involved. It is undisputed that Celia and George Boom were married on the 3d day of February, 1920, at Parkersburg, Iowa. Celia had lived at Aplington, and has been a school teacher. George had been reared on a farm near Aredale, Iowa. The acquaintanceship began at Camp Dodge during 1919, and following a considerable courtship they were married. Each became acquainted with the family of the other prior to their marriage. It was arranged between them and his father's family that the young couple should take charge of the farm of the Boom family, but the details of that arrangement are in dispute. After the marriage, the young couple moved to the farm and established their home there. The parents of George had purchased a home in Dubuque and moved from the farm to town. The young couple loved each other, and apparently got along together very well until the summer of 1920, when Mr. and Mrs. George Boom, Sr., came to the farm and made a rather protracted stay. From this point in the history of the case the evidence is in conflict.

There are two primary propositions presented on this appeal. One has to do with the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and especially that the concert of action...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Wkrs. of America, Civ. No. 664.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • February 29, 1960
    ...Sav. Bank v. Gaughen, 1940, 228 Iowa 18, 289 N.W. 727. See also Stambaugh v. Haffa, 1934, 217 Iowa 1161, 253 N.W. 137; Boom v. Boom, 1928, 206 Iowa 70, 220 N.W. 17; Faust v. Parker, 1927, 204 Iowa 297, 213 N.W. 794; Jahr v. Steffen, 1919, 187 Iowa 168, 174 N.W. 109; Aughey v. Windrem, 1908,......
  • Amos v. Prom, Civ. No. 571.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • September 30, 1953
    ...rest in the discretion of the jury. Boyle v. Bornholtz, 1937, 224 Iowa 90, 275 N.W. 479; Morrow v. Scoville, supra; Boom v. Boom, 1928, 206 Iowa 70, 220 N.W. 17; Brause v. Brause, supra; Stricklen v. Pearson Const. Co., supra; Chadima v. Kovar, 1915, 168 Iowa 385, 150 N.W. 691; Welsh v. Hal......
  • Bearbower v. Merry, No. 60734
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 17, 1978
    ...Case, 226 N.W. 922 (Iowa 1929), 212 Iowa 1213, 238 N.W. 85 (1931); Paup v. Paup, 208 Iowa 215, 225 N.W. 251 (1929); Boom v. Boom, Page 133 206 Iowa 70, 220 N.W. 17 (1928); Holdorf v. Holdorf, 191 Iowa 887, 183 N.W. 396 (1921); Stilwell v. Stilwell, 186 Iowa 177, 172 N.W. 177 (1919); Moir v.......
  • Gregory v. Sorenson, No. 40973.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 5, 1932
    ...N. W. 819;Stricklen v. Pearson Construction Co. (185 Iowa, 95, 169 N. W. 628), supra. See Boom v. Boom, 206 Iowa, 70, local citation, 74, 220 N. W. 17. A few quotations from some of the above-cited cases will illustrate the thought. During the discussion in Parkhurst v. Masteller (57 Iowa, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Wkrs. of America, Civ. No. 664.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • February 29, 1960
    ...Sav. Bank v. Gaughen, 1940, 228 Iowa 18, 289 N.W. 727. See also Stambaugh v. Haffa, 1934, 217 Iowa 1161, 253 N.W. 137; Boom v. Boom, 1928, 206 Iowa 70, 220 N.W. 17; Faust v. Parker, 1927, 204 Iowa 297, 213 N.W. 794; Jahr v. Steffen, 1919, 187 Iowa 168, 174 N.W. 109; Aughey v. Windrem, 1908,......
  • Amos v. Prom, Civ. No. 571.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • September 30, 1953
    ...rest in the discretion of the jury. Boyle v. Bornholtz, 1937, 224 Iowa 90, 275 N.W. 479; Morrow v. Scoville, supra; Boom v. Boom, 1928, 206 Iowa 70, 220 N.W. 17; Brause v. Brause, supra; Stricklen v. Pearson Const. Co., supra; Chadima v. Kovar, 1915, 168 Iowa 385, 150 N.W. 691; Welsh v. Hal......
  • Gregory v. Sorenson, No. 40973.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 5, 1932
    ...N. W. 819;Stricklen v. Pearson Construction Co. (185 Iowa, 95, 169 N. W. 628), supra. See Boom v. Boom, 206 Iowa, 70, local citation, 74, 220 N. W. 17. A few quotations from some of the above-cited cases will illustrate the thought. During the discussion in Parkhurst v. Masteller (57 Iowa, ......
  • Bearbower v. Merry, No. 60734
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 17, 1978
    ...Case, 226 N.W. 922 (Iowa 1929), 212 Iowa 1213, 238 N.W. 85 (1931); Paup v. Paup, 208 Iowa 215, 225 N.W. 251 (1929); Boom v. Boom, Page 133 206 Iowa 70, 220 N.W. 17 (1928); Holdorf v. Holdorf, 191 Iowa 887, 183 N.W. 396 (1921); Stilwell v. Stilwell, 186 Iowa 177, 172 N.W. 177 (1919); Moir v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT