Erickson v. Erickson
| Decision Date | 10 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 19,995 |
| Citation | 98 Kan. 244,158 P. 48 |
| Parties | GEORGIA N. ERICKSON, Appellant, v. JOHN ERICKSON and JOSEPHINE ERICKSON, Appellees |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided, January, 1916.
Appeal from Butler district court; ALLISON T. AYRES, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS--Evidence Rejected--Self-serving Declarations. Plaintiff testified to statements made by defendants in conversations had with her but the court refused to permit her to state what she said to them. The statements excluded were self-serving in character and did not tend to explain the language of the defendants. Held, not error.
2. ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS--Evidence--Letter Written by Plaintiff--Incompetent. In an action in which plaintiff sued to recover damages from the parents of her deceased husband for alienating his affections, a letter written plaintiff by her husband prior to their marriage was offered as evidence of his affection for plaintiff. Held, incompetent as against the defendants.
3. SAME--Demurrer to Evidence--Properly Sustained. In view of certain admissions of the plaintiff it is held that notwithstanding there was what may be called a scintilla of evidence to support her claim the ruling sustaining a demurrer to the evidence will not be disturbed.
George J. Benson, T. A. Kramer, both of El Dorado, and Walter H. Maloney, of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellant.
W. P. Hackney, of Winfield, G. P. Aikman, C. L. Aikman, both of El Dorado, and J. T. Lafferty, of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellees.
The action in the district court was one in which the plaintiff sued to recover damages from the parents of her deceased husband for alienation of his affections. It was not brought until after his death. This is an appeal from a ruling of the trial court sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence.
The defendants live on a ranch near Latham, Butler county. Their son, John G. Erickson, met the plaintiff in Kansas City, and after a brief courtship they were married on the 16th day of November, 1911. The petition alleged that shortly after the marriage the defendants, maliciously intending to deprive the plaintiff of the affections, support and maintenance of her husband, tried to induce the plaintiff to leave and abandon their son and separate from him, and that upon her refusal to do so they maliciously and persistently advised, influenced and entreated him to fail to support and maintain her and to abandon and leave her; and finally, on the 27th day of December, 1911, succeeded in their designs and persuaded him to abandon her, and shortly afterwards to commence an action against her for divorce and to make false and humiliating accusations against her; that on the 28th day of March, 1913, during the pendency of the divorce suit, John G. Erickson died.
The court permitted the plaintiff to testify to statements made to her by defendants, but refused to permit her to tell all she said to them in the same conversations. The statements excluded were for the most part incompetent because of their self-serving nature, and besides they did not tend to throw additional light upon the language used by the defendants. A letter written to the plaintiff by her husband before the marriage was offered to show his affection for her. It was not competent evidence against the defendants. The presumption is that he had affection for her or he would not have married her.
The principal claim made in the appeal is that the case is one which should have gone to the jury, and that it was error to sustain the demurrer to the evidence. There was very little testimony tending to show that the defendants were in any respect responsible for the separation of the plaintiff and her husband. She admitted that the statements in her verified answer to the petition for divorce were substantially true. In that answer she alleged that her husband had never at any time provided a home for her or made any attempt to do so that she was compelled to live at the home of his parents, which was contrary to her wishes; that on the day of her marriage her husband became intoxicated and remained in that condition for a week, after which he left her in Kansas City and went to his parents' home and made no effort to have her join him. In her sworn answer she also stated that her husband was an habitual drunkard; that while she lived with him she contracted from him a loathsome disease, and that he refused to lend her assistance to recover her health; that prior to the marriage he represented to her that he was wealthy and that he owned an interest in his father's ranch and cattle and had a large bank account; that these statements were untrue; that she learned when she went to Latham she would be required to do the housework and look after the home of her husband's parents, and that she was physically unable to do this; that she left the ranch and went to Kansas City with her husband's consent and under his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McRae v. Robinson
...letters written by the wife of the appellee prior to this marriage. The letters were all written before the marriage. In Erickson v. Erickson, 98 Kan. 244, 158 P. 48, court held that letters written prior to a marriage were not admissible. Mrs. Keeton did not know that appellee was living. ......
-
Krenkle v. Selleck
... ... in the case of a stranger." (p. 108.) ... [126 ... Kan. 534] See, also, Powers v. Sumbler, 83 Kan. 1, ... 110 P. 97; Erickson v. Erickson, 98 Kan. 244, 158 P ... 48; Cooper v. Cooper, 102 Kan. 378, 171 P. 5; ... Wohlfort v. Wohlfort, 125 Kan. 234, 263 P. 1062 ... ...
-
Meek v. Meek
...kind, is required than in the case of a stranger. (30 C. J. 1129-30, 1145; Cooper v. Cooper, 102 Kan. 378, 171 P. 5; Erickson v. Erickson, 98 Kan. 244, 158 P. 48; Eagon v. Eagon, 60 Kan. 697, 57 P. 942.) Here, the judgment of this court, there is an entire lack of what the law regards as ev......
- Ridgeway v. The Modern Woodmen of America