Duff v. Henderson
Decision Date | 25 June 1921 |
Docket Number | 32511 |
Citation | 183 N.W. 475,191 Iowa 819 |
Parties | JOE DUFF, Appellant, v. WAYNE HENDERSON, Appellee |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Page District Court.--E. B. WOODRUFF, Judge.
ACTION in two counts: one for alienation of affections and one for criminal conversation. The answer alleged that plaintiff and his wife had since been divorced, at the instance of the wife. A demurrer to the allegations of the answer was overruled. Plaintiff elected to stand on his demurrer, and judgment was entered accordingly, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Ferguson Barnes & Ferguson and L. R. Forsyth, for appellant.
Thornell & Thornell and W. E. Mitchell, for appellee.
I.
The appellant's petition is in two counts. In one count, he seeks to recover damages from the appellee for alienation of the affections of appellant's wife. In a separate count of his petition, the appellant seeks to recover for damages for criminal conversation between the appellee and appellant's wife. The appellee answered the said counts of the petition by alleging that the appellant was barred and estopped, under Section 3181 of the Code, from maintaining either of said alleged causes of action, for the reason that, after the alleged causes of action arose, the appellant's then wife obtained a divorce from the appellant. A demurrer to the allegations of the answer was overruled.
Section 3181 of the Code provides:
"When a divorce is decreed the guilty party forfeits all rights acquired by the marriage."
In Hamilton v. McNeill, 150 Iowa 470, 129 N.W. 480, we held that Section 3181 of the Code was a full and complete bar to the right of a husband to recover for alienation of his wife's affections, where the wife subsequently obtained a divorce from her husband.
In Wood v. Mathews, 47 Iowa 409, we held, in an action for criminal conversation, where the plaintiff's wife had procured a divorce from him, that this constituted no defense to an action for damages for the injuries sustained prior to the time of procuring the divorce. Wood v. Mathews was considered by the court in Hamilton v. McNeill, and in the majority opinion it was said:
We are squarely confronted with the proposition that we are compelled, in the instant case, to overrule either Hamilton v. McNeill or Wood v. Mathews. If Hamilton v. McNeill is followed, then the procuring of a divorce by the appellant's wife was a complete bar to appellant's right to recover against the appellee for alienation of his wife's affections. If Wood v. Mathews is to be followed, then the appellant is not barred, by reason of the wife's procuring a divorce from him, from maintaining a cause of action against the appellee for criminal conversation with his wife.
A majority of the court are of the opinion that the majority opinion in the case of Hamilton v. McNeill should be adhered to, and that the obtaining of a divorce by the appellant's wife is a complete bar to his right to maintain an action for the alienation of the affections of his wife, under the provisions of Section 3181 of the Code. The argument pro and con is so fully set forth in the majority opinion and in the dissenting opinion in said case that it is deemed unnecessary to further discuss the proposition. The views expressed by the present Chief Justice Evans in the majority opinion in said case are in accord with the views of the majority of the court, as now constituted.
We now hold that the obtaining of a divorce by the appellant's wife from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGlothlen v. Mills
...the comfort, society, companionship, fellowship, and assistance of the wife. This is a rule deducible from our own cases. Duff v. Henderson, 191 Iowa 819, 183 N.W. 475; Puth v. Zimbleman, 99 Iowa 641, 68 N.W. Hardwick v. Hardwick, 130 Iowa 230, 106 N.W. 639. This seems to be the general rul......
- Duff v. Henderson