Huot v. Wise

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Gilfillan, C. J.
• Citation: Huot v. Wise, 27 Minn. 68, 6 N. W. 425 (Minn. 1880)
• Decision Date: 04 August 1880
• Parties: Francis Huot v. Henry Wise, impleaded, etc

6 N.W. 425

27 Minn. 68

Francis Huot v. Henry Wise, impleaded, etc

Supreme Court of Minnesota

August 4, 1880

Appeal by defendant Henry Wise from an order of the district court for Wabasha county, Mitchell, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict against him of $ 1,800. Appellant was sued jointly with Elizabeth Wise and Gustave Wise, and the action was dismissed at the trial as to the last named defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

Brown & Steel and Doughty & Card, for appellant.

Stocker & Matchan and W. J. Hahn, for respondent.

OPINION

Gilfillan, C. J.

The wrong done in this case was enticing plaintiff's wife to leave him. The conspiracy alleged is not the gist of the action, but was alleged merely to connect all the defendants with the wrong, and to charge all with the acts of each in effecting the alleged common purpose. But the case stands like any tort alleged to have been committed jointly by two or more defendants. A recovery may be had against the one proved to be guilty, although the action may fail as to the others. Had any prejudice to the defendant as to whom the action was retained been feared from evidence admitted of the acts and declarations of those as to whom it was dismissed, the proper course was to ask the trial court to strike out that evidence, or to instruct the jury to disregard it. There was abundant evidence to support the verdict against Henry Wise. There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the damages are excessive.

Was the plaintiff's wife a competent witness for the defendant and against her husband, he not consenting to it? For the mere fact that he testified to the relations, feelings conduct and demeanor of himself and wife towards each other, while it would amount to consent, if his consent were required to these matters being investigated through competent proof, certainly cannot be taken as his consent to the removal of a disability to...