Homan v. Hall

• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MORRISSEY, C. J.
• Citation: Homan v. Hall, 102 Neb. 70, 165 N.W. 881 (Neb. 1917)
• Decision Date: 22 December 1917
• Docket Number: 19777
• Parties: ANNA HOMAN, APPELLANT, v. FLORENCE W. HALL ET AL., APPELLEES

165 N.W. 881

102 Neb. 70

ANNA HOMAN, APPELLANT, v. FLORENCE W. HALL ET AL., APPELLEES

No. 19777

Supreme Court of Nebraska

December 22, 1917

APPEAL from the district court for Douglas county: LEE S. ESTELLE JUDGE. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

B. N Robertson, for appellant.

Stout Rose & Wells, contra.

MORRISSEY, C. J. ROSE, J., not sitting.

OPINION

MORRISSEY, C. J.

From an order sustaining a demurrer to the petition and dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals. The petition alleges: That the plaintiff and one Bangs, now deceased, had, during the lifetime of Bangs, entered into an agreement to marry; that they had agreed upon the date when the ceremony should be performed; and that each of the parties was capable of entering into the marriage relation.

"That the said defendants each jointly and severally maliciously, wrongfully, unlawfully, and without just cause and to advance their own pecuniary interests, interposed objections to the said Stephen D. Bangs carrying out his said contract with plaintiff, and through threats that they would place him in a sanitarium and have him removed out of the circle of society in which he was known and had lived, and through falsely representing that plaintiff was of an unchaste character, and by unlawful restraint and undue influence, caused the said Stephen D. Bangs not to fulfil his said contract of marriage with plaintiff, and caused the said Stephen D. Bangs to breach and break his said contract of marriage with plaintiff; that on the 4th day of November, 1914, said Stephen D. Bangs was ready and willing to marry the plaintiff, and, but for the wrongful interference of the said defendants as aforesaid, he was then and there able to do so.

"Plaintiff states: That, by reason of the said wrongful acts of the said defendants in causing the breach of the said contract of marriage, plaintiff sustained the loss of an advantageous matrimonial connection, the said Stephen D. Bangs being a man of wealth at the date set for the wedding and a man of social position; that plaintiff's affections have been disregarded and blighted, she has been disappointed in her affections, and her spirit and feelings wounded, resulting in great mental distress and humiliation, and she has been damaged in the sum of $ 200,000, no part of which has been paid."

The cause of action for slander was barred by the statute of limitations and is not relied upon by plaintiff but her action seems to be for enticement or alienation of her fiance. We are cited to no authority that sanctions a...