Grilnberger v. Brotherton

• Decision Date: 14 June 1933
• Docket Number: 24156.
• Citation: 22 P.2d 983,173 Wash. 292
• Parties: GRILNBERGER v. BROTHERTON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

22 P.2d 983

173 Wash. 292

GRILNBERGER v. BROTHERTON.

No. 24156.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

June 14, 1933

Appeal from Superior Court, Walla Walla County; Matt L. Driscoll Judge.

Action by Viola Grilnberger, formerly Viola Connelly, against Lillian Brotherton.Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Herbert C. Bryson, of Walla Walla, Wesley Lloyd, of Tacoma, and H. B Noland, of Walla Walla, for appellant.

MAIN Justice.

The plaintiff, claiming that the defendant had alienated the affections of her husband, brought this action to recover damages therefor.The cause was tried Before the court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the defendant.The plaintiff moved for a new trial, and, this motion being overruled, judgment was entered upon the verdict, from which she appeals.

Frank Brotherton and Lillian Brotherton, his wife, resided in the city of Walla Walla, where Mr. Brotherton operated a garage.M. J. Connelly was the then husband of Viola Connelly, now Viola Grilnberger.Mr. Connelly was employed in the garage operated by Mr. Brotherton.Some time after this employment began, Mrs. Brotherton and Mr. Connelly began to associate together, and, as a result of such association, the appellant claims that Mr. Connelly's affections were alienated from her.Subsequent to the occurrences upon which this action is based, the Connellys were divorced.

The first question presented upon this appeal is whether the court erred in submitting the case to the jury.The appellant requested an instruction to the effect that, if the respondent's conduct and relations to Connelly were wrongful and such as naturally tended to alienate his affections from the appellant, and that such acts and conduct did have that effect, the respondent would be liable in damages.This request was refused, and, in one of the instructions given, the jury were informed that 'the motive prompting defendant is the controlling element in the present action.'It must be remembered that this is not an action by the wife against a parent or parents of her husband, but is one against a stranger who, it is claimed invaded the domestic circle and caused the separation of the husband and wife.There is a wide distinction between an action brought by a husband or wife against a parent of either and an action against a stranger for alienation of affections.Stanley v. Stanley,27 Wash. 570, 68 P....