Bracken v. Champlin

• Decision Date: 08 December 1923
• Docket Number: 24,814
• Citation: 220 P. 1027,114 Kan. 882
• Parties: LUTIE S. BRACKEN, Appellant, v. GRACE E. CHAMPLIN, Appellee
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

220 P. 1027

114 Kan. 882

LUTIE S. BRACKEN, Appellant, v. GRACE E. CHAMPLIN, Appellee

No. 24,814

Supreme Court of Kansas

December 8, 1923

Decided July, 1923.

Appeal from Phillips district court; WILLARD SIMMONS, judge.

Judgment cause remanded.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS -- Inadequate Verdict for Damages -- Passion or Prejudice of Jury. In an action by a wife for damages for the alienation of her husband's affections where there is evidence which tends to show that as a consequence she suffered great mental anguish and agony, a verdict for the plaintiff for $ 1.00 is so small and inadequate as to show that the jury was influenced by passion or prejudice.

2. SAME--Cause Remanded for Purpose of Ascertaining Only Amount of Damages Sustained by Plaintiff. Under the circumstances described in the first paragraph of this syllabus, section 307 of the code of civil procedure commands that on the reversal of the judgment, the cause shall be remanded for the purpose of ascertaining only the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff.

J. F. Bennett, of Phillipsburg, A. W. Relihan, T. D. Relihan, and J. T. Reed, all of Smith Center, for the appellant.

W. A. Barron, W. N. Moore, and William Kingery, all of Phillipsburg, for the appellee.

OPINION

MARSHALL, J.:

The plaintiff sued to recover $ 30,000 actual damages and $ 20,000 punitive damages for the alienation of the affections of her husband by the defendant. Verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff for $ 1. She appeals, and contends that the damages allowed were inadequate. The defendant makes no complaint.

1. There was evidence which tended to prove that the defendant alienated from the plaintiff the affections of her husband. The jury must have believed that evidence. There was evidence which tended to prove that the plaintiff suffered great mental anguish and agony. One dollar was no compensation to the plaintiff for the wrong done to her, even if mental anguish be not considered. The verdict on its face shows that the jury felt compelled to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, but the amount of the verdict shows that the jury was influenced by passion or prejudice against her; otherwise, a verdict for $ 1 would not have been rendered.

In Sundgren v. Stevens, 86 Kan. 154, 119 P. 322, it was held that a judgment for $ 1 for damages caused by an assault and battery, fifty cents for assault and pain and fifty cents for insult and indignity, was inadequate. This principle was followed in Thompson v. Burtis, 65 Kan. 674, 70 P. 603, and in Miller v. Miller, 81 Kan. 397, 105 P. 544.

In Nevins v. Nevins, 68 Kan. 410, 75 P. 492, this court said:

"In an action for the alienation of the affections of a husband or wife. . . .

"Mental anguish, mortification and injury to the feelings are natural and necessary consequences of the alienation and separation, and a recovery may be had therefor under the general allegation of damages sustained." (Syl. PP 1, 5.)

2. The plaintiff asks that the cause be remanded for retrial on the question of damages only. This is within the power of the court.

Section 307 of the...