De Haven v. Helvie
| Decision Date | 18 November 1890 |
| Docket Number | 14,541 |
| Citation | 25 N.E. 874,126 Ind. 82 |
| Parties | De Haven v. Helvie, by Next Friend |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Huntington Circuit Court.
B. M Cobb and C. W. Watkins, for appellant.
J. C Branyan, M. L. Spencer, W. A. Branyan, J. B. Kenner and J. I Dille, for appellee.
Suit by Martha J. Helvie against Samuel De Haven for seduction. It is charged in the complaint that the plaintiff was taken into the family of the defendant at the age of ten years, and became subject to the commands of the latter, and of his wife, both of whom exacted of her implicit obedience. It is also charged that when the plaintiff arrived at the age of sixteen the defendant, by force, threats, menaces, intimidations, persuasions, caresses and flattering words, seduced, carnally knew and debauched her, so that she became pregnant with child, to her great damage.
There was no error in refusing to require the plaintiff to separate her complaint into two paragraphs. The complaint counts upon a single cause of action, viz., the seduction of the plaintiff. It is not rendered double because, among other means employed, it is alleged that the defendant used force, threats, menaces and intimidation to accomplish his purpose. It is undoubtedly true if sexual intercourse is accomplished by force alone, under circumstances which would constitute the offence rape, and not seduction, while a civil action to recover damages would lie, it could not with propriety be called an action for seduction. Hodges v. Bales, 102 Ind. 494, 1 N.E. 692; Breon v. Hinkle, 14 Ore. 494, 13 P. 289.
There are, however, good authorities which hold that if the facts make a case of rape, an action for seduction may be maintained. Watson v. Watson, 53 Mich. 168, 18 N.W. 605; Kennedy v. Shea, 110 Mass. 147 (14 Am. Rep. 584); Lavery v. Crooke, 52 Wis. 612 (38 Am. Rep. 768, 9 N.W. 599).
As a rule, however, the cases which support this view were actions by a father to recover damages for loss of services resulting from the seduction of his daughter. In cases of that class it is usually held that an action for seduction will lie notwithstanding the victim was induced to yield through force.
Nor can we conceive of any reason why an action for seduction might not be maintained where peculiar relations of confidence or obedience were shown to exist, and the influence of that relation, with other acts and persuasions, was employed to control the will or induce the consent of one under the protection or peculiar influence of the seducer. Watson v. Watson, supra.
If in addition to flattery and persuasion the seducer employs force or threats, or exercises authority resulting from the parental or other...
To continue reading
Request your trial