Harlow v. Harlow

• Decision Date: 14 June 1928
• Citation: 152 Va. 910
• Parties: ROSE HARLOW, ET AL. v. GLADYS E. C. HARLOW.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 910

152 Va. 910

ROSE HARLOW, ET AL. v. GLADYS E. C. HARLOW.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Wytheville.

June 14, 1928.

1. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Alienation of Husband's Affections by his Family — Issue Involved — Verdict in Favor of Wife — Case at Bar. — In the instant case there was only one issue of fact presented to the jury by the evidence. This issue presented a question of veracity between the plaintiff on one side and the defendants on the other. The plaintiff charged that 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 death bed. The defendants, with one accord, denied 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 renounce her and sever relations all parties admitted.

Held: That the verdict of the jury determined this issue in favor of the plaintiff, and their verdict could not be disturbed unless upon a review of the evidence, it was found that the evidence was not sufficient to support it.

2. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Alienation of Husband's Affections by his Family — Husband's Family Believing his Marriage with Plaintiff Void because he was a Divorced Man — Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish the Alienation — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an action by a wife against her husband's family for alienation of his affections. It appeared from the evidence that the husband had previously been married to another, from whom, before his marriage to plaintiff, he obtained a legal divorce. The husband's family were Roman Catholics. When the husband was taken to the home of his family in an almost dying condition, there is no doubt that plaintiff was a most devoted wife and that he was a most devoted husband. The husband's whole attitude toward his wife was changed during the weeks immediately preceding his death while living in the family home. That at this time the husband became alienated in his affection from her, and finally renounced her, was beyond question. That this change was wilfully brought about by the united efforts of his mother, sisters and brothers the jury had a right to conclude from the testimony of the plaintiff which was corroborated on every material point. It was probably true that the conduct of the defendants was not animated in the beginning by any personal animosity toward the plaintiff. They believed, however, that marriage once entered into could not be dissolved, and that the marriage of a divorced person was unlawful, immoral and adulterous, although he law of the land was to the contrary. They all admitted this. The husband had a life insurance policy and after he went to reside with his family changed the beneficiary from his wife to members of his family. When the husband died his wife was not informed of his death, while his divorced wife was and was present just before or at his death. There was much other evidence showing the hostility of the family to plaintiff.

Held: That by this evidence and all fair inferences therefrom the Court of Appeals was bound, as was the trial court, upon a motion to set aside the verdict as without evidence to support it; and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict in favor of the wife.

3. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Alienation of Husband's Affections by his Family — Right of the Family to Express their Opinion to the Husband — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action by a wife against her husband's family for the alienation of his affections, it was insisted that defendants had a right, if they entertained an honest belief that the husband's second marriage was morally wrong, sinful and contrary to the word of God or the tenets of their religion, and for that reason endangered his eternal welfare, to express that opinion to the husband. Defendants with one accord denied that they had ever advised their son and brother as to religion or advised with him as to his marital relations. They therefore made out no case which entitled them to defend against the charge on any such ground. Defendants were entitled to no stronger case than they made out by their own evidence, and upon plaintiff's evidence they were not entitled to such defense.

4. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Alienation of Husband's Affections by his Family — Right of Family to Express their Opinion to the Husband — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action by a wife against her husband's family for the alienation of his affections, it was insisted that defendants, mother, brothers and sisters of the husband, had a right to interfere with advise and counsel the husband, having privileges superior to strangers in such case. While this principle is not disputed when applied in a proper case, it has no application to the facts persented by the present case, where there was no occasion or reason for any advice, and the giving of any was an unwarranted interference even by parents or brothers or sisters. The family of the husband being Roman Catholics believed that he, a divorced man, could not legally remarry, and advised and persuaded him to renounce his wife and separate from her.

5. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Alienation of Husband's Affections — Advice of Parents or Relations — Worthy or Unworthy Wife. — Where there is no evidence of misconduct or unworthiness on the part of the wife, there is absence of excuse for parental interference by advice or otherwise, such as parents might give, without malice, if the case was one of a wife's unworthiness or improper conduct.

6. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Alienation of Husband's Affections — Evidence of Malice. — In an action by a wife against her husband's family for alienation of his affections, direct evidence of defendants' wrongful motive is not required, and the jury may be permitted to infer it from defendants' words and actions proved by plaintiff.

7. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Alienation of Husband's Affections — Circumstantial Evidence. — In an action by a wife against her husband's family for alienation of his affections, the fact that evidence is circumstantial does not impair its usefulness or deprive it of potency. Direct evidence is not indispensable. Circumstantial evidence is competent to prove conspiracy from the very nature of the case.

8. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Alienation of Husband's Affections — Right of Parents and Relatives to Interfere. — While the law recognizes a superior right of interference on the part of parents, and will justify such interference for causes which would be no justification in favor of strangers, it is not to be understood that parents may influence their child to separate from a spouse with impunity. The relation of parent and child does not justify a deliberate attempt without cause to bring about such a separation. To do so without justifiable cause is a tort, for which the parent, like any other person, is liable.

9. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Alienation of Husband's Affections — Malice. — Malice is generally, if not always, deemed an essential element of actions for alienation. Express malice need not be proved. Malice in the sense used in actions of this kind implies no more than the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse. Direct evidence of a parent's wrongful motive is not required, but malice may be inferred from conduct as in other cases where it is in issue.

10. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Alienation of Husband's Affections by his Family — Evidence Held to Establish Conspiracy and Malice. — In the instant case, an action by a wife against her husband's family for alienation of his affections, the husband had obtained a divorce from another woman before marrying plaintiff. His family were Roman Catholics and believed that the husband's marriage to plaintiff was illegal and used their utmost endeavors to separate the husband and wife, which they finally succeeded in doing.

Held: That the evidence of plaintiff clearly established a conspiracy to alienate the affections of the husband from the wife; that it clearly established the fact that his affections were alienated, and it was also clear from all the facts of the case that the conduct of the defendants was the result of legal malice toward the plaintiff.

11. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Alienation of Husband's Affections by his Family — Punitive Damages — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action by a wife against her husband's family for alienation of the husband's affections, it was objected to a judgment for $13,500.00 in favor of the wife that it was excessive. If the evidence of the plaintiff was true it proved a deliberate and wanton assault on the martial rights of the plaintiff by defendants. Plaintiff was entitled to a verdict not only for actual but for vindictive damages. The jury also had a right to consider, in assessing punitive damages, that plaintiff was deprived of the proceeds of a life insurance policy upon her husband, which belonged to her, and other funds to which she was rightly entitled. The jury had a right to consider that an innocent and devoted wife was deprived of her husband and grossly insulted and humiliated on numerous occasions. Under these circumstances plaintiff was entitled to a substantial verdict and the amount in question was not excessive.

12. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Alienation of Husband's Affections by Husband's Family — Evidence — Declarations of Husband. — In an action by a wife against her husband's family for alienation of the husband's affections, declarations of the deceased husband were properly admissible as showing his state of mind toward the wife.

13. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Alienation of Husband's Affections by his Family — Evidence — Change of Beneficiaries in Life Insurance Policy of Husband. — The instant case was an action by a wife against her...