Giese v. Schultz
| Decision Date | 22 November 1881 |
| Citation | 10 N.W. 598,53 Wis. 462 |
| Parties | GIESE v. SCHULTZ. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Ripon municipal court.
E. L. Renals, for respondent.
W. W. D. Turner and Cotzhausen, Sylvester & Schieber, for appellant.
Action to recover damages for the breach of an alleged agreement by the defendant to marry the plaintiff. The plaintiff recovered, and the defendant appeals. The complaint avers that “the defendant, under and in faith of said marriage contract and promise to marry, and by aid thereof, and his persuasions thereunder, seduced, debauched, and carnally knew the plaintiff, and got her with child.” The plaintiff testified in her own behalf on the trial to the alleged seduction; also that her grief thereat, the defendant's neglect, and her work, caused a miscarriage, and that she was sick several days by reason thereof, and had to call a physician and have attendants.
Several errors are assigned, but it is deemed necessary to pass on but one of them. At the request of the plaintiff the judge charged the jury as follows: “If the jury are satisfied from the evidence that the defendant promised to marry the plaintiff, as charged in the complaint, the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the loss which she has sustained, and the damages will include injury to her feelings, affections, and wounded pride, as well as loss of marriage; and if, in addition to this, you should find that the defendant seduced the plaintiff under a promise of marriage, and got her with child, you will, in addition to the damages I have named, take into account this fact, and give such damages as she has sustained by reason of that additional injury.” Although some courts of great authority have held that seduction under promise of marriage cannot be shown to increase the damages in an action for the breach of such promise, yet the weight of authority seems to be that proof of such seduction is admissible for that purpose. Such was the ruling of this court in Leavitt v. Cutler, 37 Wis. 54. The rule approved in that case is that the damages in an action like this may be increased by the fact of the seduction so as to give the plaintiff a fair, liberal compensation “for mental suffering, injury to reputation, and loss of virtue” thus sustained by her.
It is believed that none of the cases go beyond this, and, on principle, it would seem that the rule as stated includes all the elements of proximate injury resulting from the breach...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booren v. McWilliams
...for mental suffering, and also by reason of the fact that she became pregnant, and that a child was born, was error. Giese v. Shultz, 53 Wis. 462, 10 N.W. 598; Musselman v. Barker, 26 Neb. 737, 42 N.W. 759; v. Salley, 82 Me. 128, 19 A. 107. The consent of the woman by deceit or artifice is ......
-
Booren v. McWilliams
...of the birth of a child may be shown are not in point on this question, however. In conflict with the opinion of Mr. Sutherland, see Giese v. Schultz, 53 Wis. 462, 10 N. W. 598;Giese v. Schultz, 65 Wis. 487, 27 N. W. 353. We hold that it was not error for the court to charge that the jury m......
-
Koerber v. Patek
...damages in actions on contract, except breach of promise of marriage. Walsh v. Ry. Co., 42 Wis. 23, 24 Am. Rep. 376;Giese v. Schultz, 53 Wis. 462, 10 N. W. 598. Nor in actions of mere negligence, unless, as a proximate result of the negligence, there be physical injury from which flows the ......
-
Salchert v. Reinig
... ... No corroboration is required. Giese v. Schultz, 65 Wis. 487, 493, 27 N. W. 353. It is opposed in the first instance by the categorical denial of the defendant, but this simply presents ... ...