Houghton v. Rice

• Decision Date: 19 October 1899
• Citation: 174 Mass. 366,54 N.E. 843
• Parties: HOUGHTON v. RICE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

174 Mass. 366

54 N.E. 843

HOUGHTON v. RICE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

October 19, 1899

COUNSEL

S.K. Hamilton and R.E. Joslin, for appellant.

C.F Chamberlayne and W.M. Prest, for appellee.

OPINION

LATHROP J.

We do not think that the declaration in this case sets forth any cause of action at common law, if the husband had been the plaintiff instead of the wife; and no statute of this commonwealth gives the wife any greater right than the husband in cases of this nature. The acts charged are that the defendant did "ingratiate herself into the affections of the said William Houghton [the defendant's husband]; cause him incessantly to frequent her society, to give her various large sums of money, to execute to her various conveyances of property, to make large expenditures of money on her behalf, and to transfer to her, the said defendant, the courtesy and generosity, love and affection previously bestowed by him upon the plaintiff as his said wife." It is then charged that by reason of these unlawful acts her husband ceased to have regard, respect, or affection for the plaintiff, and became cross, irritable, ill tempered, and penurious towards her, denying her suitable support and maintenance; was guilty of cruel and abusive treatment towards her; that his affections for her were wholly alienated from her, and her home and married state broken up and destroyed; that her husband, while living during certain months under the same roof with her, separated himself "virtually" from her, refused to live or cohabit with her as husband and wife, or to give her the benefit of his society, or to perform any of the duties due from him as her husband, but, on the contrary, for part of the year openly, and during the rest of the year secretly lavished his property, society, love, and affection upon the defendant. It is further alleged that "by reason of the matters and things hereinbefore set forth" the plaintiff has suffered great pain and distress of mind and body, has lost her home, and the society and comfort of her husband, etc. No adultery is alleged, and therefore the action is not for criminal conversation, where the allegation, when a husband sues, is that the defendant debauched and carnally knew the plaintiff's wife. The alienation of the wife's affection in such a case is a mere matter of aggravation, and the loss of the wife's consortium is the actionable consequence...