Clark v. Clark
| Decision Date | 21 December 1917 |
| Docket Number | 23,274 |
| Citation | 118 N.E. 123,187 Ind. 25 |
| Parties | Clark et al. v. Clark |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Huntington Circuit Court; Samuel E. Cook, Judge.
Action by Effie Clark, by her next friend, Martin Nicholson, against Thomas Clark and wife. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal. (Transferred from the Appellate Court under § 1405 Burns 1914, Acts 1901 p. 590).
Affirmed.
A. W Hamilton and Watkins & Butler, for appellants.
Fred H Bowers and Milo N. Feightner, for appellees.
This was an action by appellee against appellants to recover damages on account of the alienation of the affections of her husband, Virgil Clark, who is a son of appellants. The trial resulted in a judgment for $ 500 in favor of appellee. Appellants assign as the only error that the trial court erred in overruling their joint motion and their several motions for a new trial.
Appellee and Virgil Clark were married on January 8, 1914, and lived together as husband and wife, residing at the home of appellee's parents until July 15, 1914, at which time Virgil Clark left appellee and returned to live with his parents, who are the appellants. At the time of the marriage appellee was seventeen years of age and her husband was nineteen years old.
Appellants assert that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict against them or either of them. The evidence shows without dispute that the husband of appellee lived with her for only a few months, after which he returned to the home of his parents and refused to live with her longer as her husband, but it is asserted that there is no evidence to show that the separation was caused or brought about by the wilful and malicious conduct of appellants whereby the affections of their son were alienated from appellee and whereby he was wrongfully persuaded, induced and enticed to leave her, as alleged in her complaint.
Appellee assumed the burden of proving not only that her husband lost his affection for her and abandoned her, but also that this result was caused by the wrongful influence and the wilful and malicious conduct of appellants. The quo animo is always a material question in actions of this character. The conduct which results in the alienation of the affections must be wrongful and unjustifiable. Where a wife, as in this case, charges the father and mother of her husband with alienating his affections, the burden rests upon her to prove that one or the other or both were guilty of some improper, wrongful and unjustifiable conduct which brought about the result of which she complains. In the absence of proof to the contrary it will be assumed that the parents act in good faith, inspired by a proper regard for the welfare and happiness of their child.
In considering whether or not there is some evidence to sustain the verdict, this court can consider only the evidence which tends to support it. There is evidence that appellee and her husband lived peaceably and agreeably together for three or four months after their marriage and that during such time they frequently visited at the home of his parents who lived on a farm not far distant from the farm on which they resided with the parents of appellee. About the last of April or the first of May differences began to arise between appellee and her husband's parents and the latter began to manifest an ill feeling toward appellee. There is evidence that on the evening of May 3, which was Sunday, the first serious difference arose; that appellee and her husband were on that evening at the home of his parents when she received a telephone message requesting them to come home and assist her parents with the farm chores. At the time the message was received her husband was not at the house, so she and one of his sisters went over to the home of her parents and assisted with the work, returning later. After her return her husband's parents seemed angry and started a wordy controversy with appellee in which they complained that they could not have their boy with them as much as they desired and stated that "if they could not have him more they would see if they could not have him more." On the following day the husband and his father had a conversation with appellee and her father in which his father proposed that his son come to his home to live for the remainder of that summer and the following winter. In the month of June on an occasion when appellee was with her husband at the home of his parents, a controversy arose in which appellant Thomas Clark shook appellee violently and forced her into a chair, using toward her harsh and profane language. She was at the time pregnant. During this conversation he said to appellee, "If you do not let Virgil come home, I will bring him and we will keep him here and you cannot have him." In the same conversation he used disparaging language toward appellee in the presence of her husband saying, "you have disgraced my son," and upon appellee's inquiry in what way she had disgraced him, appellant Lilly Clark replied, in the presence of her husband and the husband of appellee, charging appellee in coarse language with having produced several miscarriages upon herself, evidently referring to a time...
To continue reading
Request your trial