Curtis v. Miller

• Decision Date: 28 February 1921
• Docket Number: 215
• Citation: 112 A. 747,269 Pa. 509
• Parties: Curtis, Appellant, v. Miller
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

112 A. 747

269 Pa. 509

Curtis, Appellant, v. Miller

No. 215

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

February 28, 1921

January 12, 1921, Submitted

Appeal, No. 215, Jan. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1918, No. 974, on verdict for defendant, in case of John S. Curtis v. Joseph B Miller. Affirmed.

Trespass for alienation of wife's affections. Before WESSEL, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

At the trial the court gave binding instructions for defendant. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Errors assigned were various rulings on evidence stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court, and binding instructions for defendant, quoting the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Henry J. Scott, for appellant, cited: Ickes v. Ickes, 237 Pa. 582; Redding v. Gazzam, 200 Pa. 70; Miller v. Wilson, 24 Pa. 114; Trout v. Kennedy, 47 Pa. 387.

Thomas J. Meagher and William A. Gray, for appellee.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE FRAZER:

Plaintiff sued to recover damages for alienation of the affections of his wife. A verdict was directed for defendant and plaintiff appealed. The court below held the testimony failed to show that the affections of plaintiff's wife were alienated but, even assuming such evidence, sufficient proof was lacking to support a verdict against defendant.

The evidence offered to show a loss of affection on the part of the wife was that in December, 1917, six months after marriage, she left Erie where she had resided with her husband and returned to the home of her mother in Philadelphia. We find nothing in the evidence to indicate the cause of this action upon her part, or whether the residence thus chosen by her was to be a permanent one, or that she left Erie with intent to separate permanently from her husband. For all that appears in the testimony her change of residence might have been the result of a mutual agreement between herself and husband, or for other reasons with which the defendant was not concerned. The burden was on plaintiff to prove alienation of his wife's affections by acts of defendant, and if he relied upon her leaving the Erie home and taking up her residence in Philadelphia to prove a loss of affection for him, the burden was still upon him to furnish evidence to establish the fact that her action was due to intermeddling on the part of defendant.

To establish defendant's wrong-doing as charged, evidence was adduced showing that within a week after the marriage of plaintiff and his wife defendant wrote Mrs. Curtis from Philadelphia stating in effect his surprise on hearing of her marriage and informing her of his "lasting love" for her and that "I am here [meaning, no doubt Philadelphia] when you want me," together with many endearing expressions. This letter in itself, while wholly improper and reprehensible, is not proof of subsequent interference by defendant between plaintiff and his wife. It was, however, followed by evidence of declarations made by defendant that he "was going to do everything under the sun to get Min [Mrs. Curtis] back" and that he would supply her with everything needed. Although this was evidence of an intent to do the acts charged, it is not proof they were actually carried out. Other evidence submitted was that defendant and plaintiff's wife were seen together many times during the visits of Mrs. Curtis to Philadelphia in the summer and fall of 1917, that on one occasion on her arrival in Philadelphia from New York he met her at the railroad station and kissed her in the presence of her mother. Plaintiff also offered in evidence a deed dated January 26, 1919, over a year after the alleged...