Harlow v. Harlow

• Decision Date: 14 June 1928
• Citation: 143 S.E. 720
• Parties: HARLOW et al. v. HARLOW.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

143 S.E. 720

HARLOW et al.

v.HARLOW.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 14, 1928.

Error to CorporationCourt of Alexandria.

Action by Gladys E. C. Harlow against Rose Harlow and others.Judgment for plaintiff against some of defendants, and such defendants bring error, and plaintiff assigns cross-error.Judgment amended and affirmed.

John S. Barbour, of Fairfax, for plaintiffs in error.

Daniel Threw Wright and Raymond B. Dickey, both of Washington, D. O, and Carl Budwesky, of Alexandria, for defendant in error.

CHICHESTER, J.The plaintiffs in error, Rose Harlow, Lillian Harlow Green, George A. Harlow, and Mary D. Harlow, who with Lena Hartigan and Edwin Harlow were defendants in the trial court, and are hereinafter called defendants, are here complaining of a judgment of the corporation court of Alexandria against them in favor of Gladys E. Cowles Harlow, plaintiff in the trial court, and hereinafter called plaintiff, in the sum of $13,500 for alleged alienation of plaintiff's husband's affections.

The jury found a verdict against all the defendants in the sum of $20,000, but the court set the verdict of the jury aside as to the defendantsLena Hartigan and Edwin Harlow, upon motion of defendants' counsel, upon the ground that there was no evidence to support it, and reduced the damages proportionately; that is, to $13,500.

The plaintiff assigns as cross-error this action of the trial court, and contends that judgment should have been entered on the verdict for $20,000 against all the defendants.

The defendants assign numerous errors.They involve the refusal of the court to set the verdict aside as to each of the defendants upon the ground that the verdict is without evidence to support it, and its refusal to enter judgment for them; its refusal to set aside the verdict on the ground that it is excessive, and tainted with passion and prejudice; that the remittitur was insufficient; for alleged errors in instructions and in the admission and exclusion of evidence.

In our view of the case, it is not necessary to consider at length any of the assignments of error on the part of the defendants, except that which charges that the court erred in not setting aside the verdict, (1) on the ground that there was no evidence to support it; (2) because it was excessive and tainted with passion and prejudice; and (3) because the remittitur required by the court in the amount of the verdict was insufficient.

It will be necessary also to consider the cross-error assigned by the plaintiff.

1.There was only one issue of fact presented to the jury by the evidence in this case, as we think will be clearly demonstrated presently, and upon that issue there was a direct conflict in the evidence.The verdict, of the jury determined this issue in favor of the plaintiff.The issue presented a question of veracity between the plaintiff on one side and the defendants on the other.The plaintiff charged in her declaration that the defendants conspired together to alienate her husband's affections from her, and that they succeeded in doing so, and that he, due to their influence and persuasion, renounced her in the presence of a number of the defendants while he was lying on his deathbed.The defendants, with one accord, deny that they ever even talked to the husband about his marital relations with plaintiff, or that they ever advised or attempted to influence him to renounce her and sever those relations.That he did do it all parties admit.

It follows that, upon the question now being considered, it is only necessary to review the evidence introduced by the plaintiff to determine whether it supports the verdict found by the jury.

The evidence introduced on behalf of theplaintiff shows that John M. Harlow, referred to frequently in the record as "Dick" Harlow, deceased husband of Gladys E. C. Harlow, the plaintiff, was twice married.He was divorced by his first wife, whom he married in 1901.He had one child, a daughter, now Mrs. McGinnis, by this marriage.In 1921he married the defendant in error, a New York girl who came to Washington to work during the war.There is ample proof in the record that John M. Harlow and his second wife were very much devoted to each other both before and after their marriage, and up to the time, during his last illness, when he went or was carried to Alexandria to the home of his mother, Rose Harlow.He had been a shiftless and somewhat wild person up to the time of his second marriage.After that he was saving and industrious, evidently under the influence of his wife, who appears to have been a most excellent and estimable woman and wife.At the time of his last illness, his wife, who continued to work for the government after her marriage, as she had been doing before, had deposited from her own earnings in a savings bank, to the credit of her husband, $936, and her husband had a checking account for current expenses in another bank of between $400 and $500.

After his marriage, he and his wife, the plaintiff, lived in an apartment in Washington.He became ill in the spring of 1923, and grew steadily worse until he died.

His people were Roman Catholics, and he was, or had been, a member of the church also.His first wife was a Roman Catholic, but his second wife, the plaintiff, was a Protestant.This, however, seemed to make no difference in the happiness of the couple, until the husband went or was taken to Alexandria on August 4, 1923, after he became ill, where he went to spend the day, but where he remained until his death on September 17, 1923.His wife acquiesced in his remaining in Alexandria, where he could have the attention his mother, sisters, and brothers would give him, during her absence at her office during the day, but at first she visited him every day.Prior to the time when members of his family were notified of his illness, they either did not know, or pretended not to know, of his second marriage, and they apparently never recognized their brother and the plaintiff as husband and wife.Before the brother had ever come to Alexandria even for a visit of a day at a time, one or more of them told the plaintiff that he had lost his soul, and that she(plaintiff) would have to help him get it back.

His mother, Rose Harlow, two brothers, George Harlow and Edwin Harlow, and two sisters, Mrs, Lillian Harlow Green and Mary D. Harlow, lived together, in the same house, in Alexandria.Mrs. Hartigan, the other defendant, lived in Washington.When John M. Harlow was taken to the Alexandria home in an almost dying condition on August 4, there is no doubt about the fact that the defendant in error was a most devoted wife, and that he was a most devoted husband.That his whole attitude toward his wife was changed during the six weeks he lived in the home of his mother and sisters and brothers, that he became alienated in his affection for her, and finally renounced her, is beyond question.That this change was willfully brought about by the united efforts of at least the mother, Mrs. Green, Miss Mary Harlow, and George Harlow the jury had a right to conclude from the testimony of the plaintiff, which, the record shows, was corroborated on every material point.By this testimony and all fair inferences therefrom this court is bound, as was the trial court, upon the motion to set aside the verdict.It would not be profitable, and it is not necessary, to undertake an extended review of the evidence supporting the charge made by the plaintiff in her declaration.

It is probably true that the conduct of the defendants was not animated in the beginning by any personal animosity toward the plaintiff.Their zeal may have been the result of religious fanaticism running wild.They believed that a marriage, once entered into, could not be dissolved by divorce, and that the marriage of a divorced person was unlawful, immoral, and adulterous, although the law of the land was to the contrary.They all admitted this.There had for many years been substantially no contact between them and the plaintiff's husband.He was living in Washington, active in the affairs of the world, and out of touch and sympathy with the narrow views of his family.Their lives were in channels so far apart that none of the defendants, if they are to be believed, even knew he was married until a long time afterwards, when he telephoned them that he was ill, and they came, seeing with their own eyes that he was living with a woman.One of the plaintiffs in error, Mrs. Green, came to the apartment, met his wife, and then for the first time knew definitely that he was married.Immediately on that first visit, she said to the plaintiff:

"Gladys, you have got to help get his soul back.He has lost it, and you've got to let him go back to the church."

From this time on, the united idea of at least four of the. defendants seems to have been to get his wife out of his life, because, as they viewed it, there had been no lawful marriage.When she did not yield to their wishes and suggestions and eliminate herself, they proceeded to bend every effort to eliminate her, and from this time their malicious and vindictive spirit toward her is evident in every word and deed.

After her husband went to Alexandria on August 4th, the plaintiff, at first, went over there from Washington to see him every day, but it became apparent, at an early date, that she was not wanted so often, and her time was limited frequently by demand of members of the family, to a visit of ten minutes.Plaintiff tetified that they(referring to Mrs. Harlow, the mother, Mrs. Green, Miss Mary Harlow, and the brother, George Harlow) would meet her at the door, and, "when they saw who had called, would say, "Well, you might see him.We will see if he is up, ' or 'sitting up, ' and they would treat me very coolly and indifferent, slam the doors, and rush past me, and not address me."

It was proved in the evidence that a Roman Catholic priest visited the husband nearly...