Davis v. Young
| Decision Date | 04 June 1891 |
| Citation | 16 S.W. 473,90 Tenn. 303 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. YOUNG. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Error from circuit court, Chester county; LEVI S. WOODS, Judge.
Action by H. C. Davis against J. W. Young for the seduction of his daughter. Code Tenn. § 3469, provides that an action for seduction must be brought within one year after the cause of action accrues.
I. F Huddleston and T. F. Stubblefield, for plaintiff in error.
E. L Bullock and M. F. Ozier, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff sues to recover damages for the seduction of his daughter. The second count of the declaration avers the daughter to be under 21 years of age; that the defendant on 1st of April, 1889, and at divers other times from that day to the bringing of this suit, promised to marry Emma Davis and make her his lawful wife, if she would yield to him, and satisfy his unholy lusts; by means of which said promises she was seduced, etc. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained, on the ground that the suit was brought more than 12 months after the day laid in the declaration. This was error. The averment is that the acts constituting the wrong complained of were committed under a promise of marriage and that such promise was continued and renewed from time to time to a period less than 12 months before the bringing of the suit. Trusting to the good faith of the defendant, and relying upon his promises, the daughter was overreached. The promise continued to influence her, and each yielding must be accredited to the promise. It is not presumable that the promise was meant by the one and understood by the other to be carried out and performed immediately after the accomplishment of his first act of defilement, but at some future time. As it was alone upon the faith of the promise that the purpose of the defendant could be achieved, it follows as of course that each successive submission by the daughter was in consideration of that promise, and so understood by the defendant. Therefore the seduction is made up of the several violations by the defendant, and he will not be permitted to confine her remedy to the first illicit act, as the only one of seduction, and, when sued, relieve himself by showing that first act to have occurred more than 12 months before suit was brought. Such limitation places it in the power of the unprincipled to effect the ruin of the confiding female, and then, by flattering the confidence and hopes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watts v. Chittenden
...Breiner v. Nugent, 136 Iowa 322, 327–29, 111 N.W. 446 (1907); Russell v. Chambers, 31 Minn. 54, 54–55, 16 N.W. 458 (1883); Davis v. Young, 90 Tenn. 303, 304–305, 16 S.W. 473 (1891). In doing so, these courts have recognized that claims of seduction usually involve a period when the defendan......
-
Watts v. Chittenden
...Breiner v. Nugent, 136 Iowa 322, 327-29, 111 N.W. 446 (1907); Russell v. Chambers, 31 Minn. 54, 54-55, 16 N.W. 458 (1883); Davis v. Young, 90 Tenn. 303, 304-305, 16 S.W. 473 (1891). In doing so, these courts have recognized that claims of seduction usually involve a period when the defendan......
-
Gunder v. Tibbits, Administrator
...cases affirm the same doctrine in civil actions by the father of the victim. Franklin v. McCorkle, supra, was repudiated in Davis v. Young, 90 Tenn. 303, 16 S.W. 473, wherein it was said: "The seduction is made up of several violations by the defendant, and he will not be permitted to confi......
-
Tennessee Eastman Corp. v. Newman
...... parties were under a contract of marriage. . . "Such. being the case, under the rule laid down in Davis v. Young, 90 Tenn. 303, 16 S.W. 473, the statute of. limitations would not begin to run against such a plaintiff. until the last illegal act had ......