Briles v. Briles

• Decision Date: 27 April 1916
• Docket Number: No. 8959.,8959.
• Citation: 112 N.E. 449,66 Ind.App. 444
• Parties: BRILES et al. v. BRILES.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

66 Ind.App. 444

112 N.E. 449

BRILES et al.

v.BRILES.

No. 8959.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

April 27, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Warren County; B. B. Berry, Judge.

Action by Mabel Briles, by her next friend, Thomas Vice, against Cyrus A. Briles, Sr., and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

O. B. Ratcliff and V. E. Livengood, both of Covington, for appellants. Edwin F. McCabe and Charles E. McCabe, both of Williamsport, and George Leonard, of Danville, Ill., for appellee.

FELT, P. J.

This is a suit by appellee against appellants for damages for the alienation of the affections of her former husband, Cyrus A. Briles, Jr. The complaint was in two paragraphs, which were answered by general denial. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict for appellee in the sum of $4,500. Appellants moved for a new trial, and the court ordered that the motion be overruled, on condition that appellee enter a remittitur of $600. On the same day appellee filed a remittitur in the amount stated. Thereupon the court overruled the motion for a new trial, to which appellants separately and severally excepted, and were given 90 days in which to file their bills of exceptions.

The assignment relied on for reversal is that the court erred in overruling the separate and several motions of appellants for a new trial. Appellee and Cyrus A. Briles, Jr., were married on March 4, 1911, and lived together as husband and wife until January 16, 1913. They were divorced on February 3, 1913, and this suit was begun on March 10, 1913. Appellants Cyrus A. Briles, Sr., and Catherine Briles are the father and mother of Cyrus A. Briles, Jr., and appellants Charles and Bernard Briles are his brothers.

The complaint alleges in substance that appellee at all times demeaned herself toward her husband as a true, loving, and faithful wife; that she and her husband lived happily and contentedly together until interfered with by appellants; that they have one child born as the fruits of their marriage; that appellants were opposed to their marriage and soon thereafter began to criticise and abuse appellee in the presence of her husband, and unlawfully, purposely, and maliciously sought to injure appellee by depriving her of the comfort, society, and consortium of her husband, and to alienate and destroy his affection for her; that appellants and each of them did on January 16, 1913, and on divers occasions prior thereto wrongfully, unjustly, and maliciously persuade, entice, and coerce her husband to break up her home and to cease to live with appellee or to recognize her as his wife; that by and on account of appellants' conduct aforesaid and over her objection, and without her consent appellee's husband took her and their child, about one year old, to the home of her father and ruthlessly thrust her out upon the street and tore himself from appellee, and since that time has refused to live with her or to recognize her as his wife, and has continued to live separate and apart from her, all without any fault of hers and wholly on account of the aforesaid influence and malicious conduct of appellants.

Appellants asked a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence, is contrary to law, that the damages are excessive, and error in giving instruction 4; also alleged errors relating to the evidence upon the trial and newly discovered evidence. Appellants contend that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence; that the uncontradicted evidence shows that appellee's own conduct caused the alienation of her husband's affections and their separation.

[1][2][3] The verdict of the jury is a finding for appellee upon all material facts essential to her recovery. If there is any evidence from which such facts may reasonably have been inferred by the jury it is sufficient on appeal. This court will not weigh conflicting evidence, but will determine whether there is evidence tending to support all the material allegations of the complaint. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence are questions for the jury. Where different inferences may reasonably be drawn from the evidence and the jury has found the facts in appellee's favor the verdict is supported by the evidence. Under the foregoing well-established rules of appellate procedure it is only necessary to consider the evidence tending to support the verdict, since we cannot weigh the conflicting evidence.

We have carefully read and considered the evidence and find that it so clearly sustains the verdict that we do not feel warranted in setting it out in detail. There is some conflict of evidence, but no failure of proof as to any material and issuable fact. There are many facts and circumstances which tend to support appellee's contention and to warrant the jury in inferring the ultimate facts. But in addition to this there is direct and positive testimony which tends to prove the malicious purpose on the part of the appellants to alienate the affections of appellee's husband and cause their separation.

The contention of appellants that the undisputed evidence conclusively shows that the alienation of the affections of appellee's husband was due to her own fault and misconduct is completely overthrown by the evidence. Conceding appellants' version of much of the testimony, it only shows a controversy over many disputed points, and that appellants' counsel have inferred from the evidence ultimate facts directly opposed to those found by the jury. Appellants also contend that the presumption of good faith and honest motives are in favor of the conduct of parents toward their children and there is no evidence which warranted the jury in finding that a...