Fields v. Fields

• Decision Date: 17 December 1918
• Citation: 93 Conn. 96,105 A. 347
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: FIELDS v. FIELDS et al.

105 A. 347

93 Conn. 96

FIELDS v. FIELDS et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 17, 1918

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; William L. Bennett Judge.

Action by Nellie Fields against Owen Fields and another, for alienation of affection of plaintiff's husband. Plaintiff was nonsuited at the trial, and from refusal to set aside the judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Ulysses G. Church and Edward B. Reiley, Jr., both of Waterbury, for appellant.

Leonard J. Nickerson, of Cornwall, and Clayton L. Klein, of Waterbury, for appellees.

CURTIS, J.

Under the evidence presented no suggestion is made that there was not substantial evidence that the plaintiff had lost the affection and society of her husband.

The defendants claim that there was no substantial evidence sustaining the following essential facts of the plaintiff's case:

(1) That the defendants were the effective or predominant cause of such alienation.

(2) That the defendants maliciously caused such alienation that is, caused the alienation intentionally and without legal justification.

An examination of the evidence discloses that there was evidence of a state of mind on the part of the defendants tending to show that a separation of their son from his wife would be welcomed by them; furthermore, that from October, 1916, until the separation in April, 1917, the husband spent an increasing amount of time with his parents, and that neglect of his wife showed a proportional increase, during said period.

There was evidence of statements by the parents tending to show that they had, without legal justification, directly and intentionally influenced the husband to part from his wife.

It is clear that the court dealt with these motions as if they were in the nature of motions relating to the setting aside of a verdict as against evidence.

In Cook v. Morris, Ex'r, 66 Conn. 208, 33 A. 997, this court said:

" But a motion for nonsuit, cannot be permitted to operate as a motion to set aside a verdict against evidence. The latter is a proceeding by which the court may give relief for a palpable mistake made by the jury in weighing evidence submitted to them; the former is a proceeding by which the court may take a case from the jury when, admitting the truth of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and every favorable inference that may be drawn from it, the issues must nevertheless be found

...