Engle v. Simmons

• Decision Date: 30 June 1906
• Parties: ENGLE v. SIMMONS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

41 So. 1023

148 Ala. 92

ENGLE v. SIMMONS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; Osceola Kyle, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Mary P. Engle against W. B. Simmons. From a judgment for defendant rendered on sustaining a demurrer to the complaint plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

John R Sample and S. A. Lynne, for appellant.

E. W Godbey, for appellee.

DOWDELL J.

This is an action by the plaintiff, appellant here, to recover damages for the wrongful act of the defendant, whereby by she was caused to suffer great physical pain and consequent temporary physical disability. The complaint as amended contained five counts, to all of which a demurrer was sustained by the trial court, and, the plaintiff declining to plead over, a judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant.

The principal and important question in the case is: Does the complaint as amended state a cause of action? It is a sound and just principle of law that, where one in violation of the law does an act which in its consequences is injurious to another, he is liable for the damages caused by such wrongful act. Van Norden v. Robinson, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 567. The allegations of the complaint show that the defendant entered into the dwelling house of the plaintiff, who was at the time far advanced in pregnancy, and in the absence of her husband and with the evident purpose of collecting a claim against the husband, and after being informed by the plaintiff that her husband was absent from home, and after having been requested by plaintiff to leave the premises, he refused without legal cause or good excuse to do so, persisting in interrogating the plaintiff and in taking an inventory of her household effects, making at the time threats of what he intended to do, whereby the plaintiff was thrown into a state of nervous excitement, bringing on labor pains attended with unusual severity continuing for three days, and resulting in the premature birth of a child, and causing a physical disability to the plaintiff which for a long time incapacitated her for the discharge of her household duties. That the defendant violated the law in his refusal to immediately leave the premises when ordered to do so, there can be no question, and that his subsequent conduct as alleged was wrongful is equally certain. The action was properly brought in the name of the wife. Sections 2523, 2527, Code 1896. The suit is for an injury to the plaintiff, and not for a trespass to the realty as supposed by appellee. It is wholly immaterial under the circumstances alleged whether the ownership of the premises was in the plaintiff or her husband, although it is averred that the possession of the dwelling was held under a contract of lease made by the wife. In Watson v. Dilts (Iowa) 89 N.W. 1068, 57 L. R. A. 561, 93 Am. St. Rep. 239, it was said: "Nor does it matter, in our judgment, that the trespass was committed on property belonging to the husband. It was her home as well as that of her husband, and any unlawful entry or invasion thereof which produced physical injury to her was a wrong for which she sought to recover."

Nor is it important that no...