Heck v. Schupp
| Decision Date | 16 September 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 29485.,29485. |
| Citation | 68 N.E.2d 464,394 Ill. 296 |
| Parties | HECK v. SCHUPP. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Francis B. allegretti, judge.
Action by Stanley Heck against Alvin S. Schupp for alienation of the affections of plaintiff's wife. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Thomas A. Green, of Chicago (A. D. McMahon, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Andrew J. Farrell, of Chicago (Owen Rall, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee.
This cause is here in direct appeal, the validity of an act of the General Assembly being involved. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment of the superior court of Cook county sustaining appellee's motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint.
Appellant, on July 31, 1945, filed his complaint against appellee, alleging that he, a member of the armed forces of the United States and hospitalized at Temple, Texas, was on January 1, 1939, married to one Henrietta Heck; that after he joined the armed forces of the United States and defendant, well knowing the happy condition of his home life, by subterfuge, contrivance and design, did wickedly and wantonly overcome the devotion and love of said Henrietta toward him; that intending to injure him and intending to deprive him of the society and assistance of his wife, the defendant, during the months of December, 1943, and January and February, 1944, and other dates stated, wantonly and maliciously destroyed and alienated from plaintiff the affection of the said Henrietta; that he carried on an illicit affair with her while appellant lay seriously injured, and since his return to the hospital Henrietta has refused to be a dutiful wife and has failed to visit him or take any interest in his plight. The complaint alleges that by means of the actions of the defendant the plaintiff has been wholly deprived of the society, affection, assistance, comfort and consolation of his wife.
Appellee's motion to dismiss specified three grounds: (1) That the suit was filed in contravention of a certain statute in full force and effect at the time of the filing of the suit; (2) that the cause of action set forth in the complaint is in contravention of the statute; and (3) matters and things set forth in the complaint are insufficient in law to constitute an action against the defendant. This motion was sustained and the cause was dismissed. Plaintiff, appellant here, urges that the act known as the ‘Heart Balm’ Act, violates section 13 of article IV and section 19 of article II of the constitution of this State, Smith-Hurd Stats.
Section 13 of article IV provides in part that no act passed by the General Assembly shall embrace more than one subject and that shall be expressed in the title. Appellant insists that the act does not fairly express in its title the purposes for its enactment, and that it contains no provisions fairly included within the title. Certain portions of this act were under attack in People v. Mahumed, 381 Ill. 81, 44 N.E.2d 911, where it was held that the provision of the act there referred to bore no proper relation to the title of the act and that section 13 of article IV was violated. The invalidity of section 1 of this act is urged in this case. The act is entitled: ‘An Act in relation to certain causes of action conductive to extortion and blackmail, and to declare illegal, contracts and acts made and done in pursuance thereof.’ (Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, chap. 38, pars. 246.1 and 246.2.) Section 1 of the act reads as follows: ‘It shall be unlawful for any person, either as litigant or attorney, to file, cause to be filed, threaten to file, or threaten to cause to be filed, in any court in this State, any pleading or paper setting forth or seeking to recover upon any civil cause of action based upon alienation of affections, criminal conversation, or breach of contract to marry, whether such cause of action arose within or without this State.’ One would scarcelysuspect from reading the title that the act would contain any provision prohibiting the filing of such actions as are specified within section 1. The title of the act discloses its purpose to be to prevent actions conducive to extortion and blackmail, yet in the body of the act the words ‘extortion’ and ‘blackmail’ do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Magierowski v. Buckley, A--63
...691, 62 S.Ct. 361, 86 L.Ed. 553 (1941); McMullen v. Nannah, 49 Pa.Dist. & Co.R. 516 (Pa.C.P.1943). Contra, Heck v. Schupp, 394 Ill. 296, 68 N.E.2d 464, 167 A.L.R. 232 (Sup.Ct.1946), where, in an alienation of affections action, the court struck down the entire statute (Smith-Hurd, Ill.Ann.S......
-
Miller v. Lewis
...Harrah's was falsely representing its view. Under Illinois law, extortion and blackmail are synonymous terms. See Heck v. Schupp, 394 Ill. 296, 68 N.E.2d 464, 466 (1946); Jordan v. Knafel, 355 Ill.App.3d 534, 291 Ill.Dec. 527, 823 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (2005) (citing Becker v. Zellner, 292 Ill.......
-
Pinnick v. Cleary
...15--22. Compare Daily v. Parker, 61 F.Supp. 701 (N.D.Ill.); Zaremba v. Skurdialis, 395 Ill. 437, 70 N.E.2d 617; and Heck v. Schupp, 394 Ill. 296, 68 N.E.2d 464, in which the Illinois 'Heart Balm' statute was declared unconstitutional. The constitutionality of our 'Heart Balm' statute, G.L. ......
-
Vitro v. Mihelcic
...not create a constitutional right to a certain remedy, it expresses a general statement of philosophy); see also Heck v. Schupp, 394 Ill. 296, 299-300, 68 N.E.2d 464 (1946) ("Certainly to give a license to one who would disrupt that [family] relationship by tying the hands of injured member......
-
Act 099-0090, SB 57 – AN ACT concerning civil law
...and Acts made and done in pursuance thereof", filed May 4, 1935, Laws 1935, p. 716. The Illinois Supreme Court held, in Heck v. Schupp, 394 Ill. 296 (1946), that the 1935 Act was unconstitutional and that the abolition of heart balm actions would infringe upon the rights of parties to remed......