In re Freche
| Decision Date | 03 June 1901 |
| Citation | 109 F. 620 |
| Parties | In re FRECHE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
William J. Linihan, for petitioner.
Neilson Abeel, for creditor.
Gustav Freche has been adjudged a bankrupt by this court. In his schedule of debts he sets out a judgment recovered against him in the Essex county circuit court by one Charles T Combs, and on which a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum has been issued, and for the failure to pay which Freche is now confined in the jail of said county. Freche has sued out of this court a writ of habeas corpus, directed to the jailer of the county of Essex, which, being returned into court, shows that the said judgment on which the execution issued was founded upon an action of tort for the loss of a daughter's services to her father, occasioned by her seduction by Freche. Freche has received a discharge in bankruptcy, and the question which this writ presents is whether the judgment so created is thereby discharged. The seventeenth section of the bankrupt act, so far as applicable to this case, reads as follows:
'A discharge in bankruptcy shall release a bankrupt from all his provable debts except such as are * * * judgments in actions for fraud or obtaining property under false pretenses or false representations or for willful and malicious injuries to the person or property of another.'
The foundation of the judgment in an action by the father for the seduction of his daughter is the loss to him of her services and, while the amount of service which the daughter had been in the habit of performing might be very small, still the action cannot be maintained in New Jersey unless the fact of performance be proved. Sutton v. Huffman, 32 N.J.Law, 58. Until the daughter attains the age of 21 years this right to her services is a property right, which the father is entitled to enjoy without molestation; and any unlawful act which hinders him from availing himself of the benefits of this right, or making such disposition of it as he sees fit, is an interference for which he is entitled to recover damages, as for an injury to his property. But, as was said by Jackson, J., in Barbour v. Stephenson (C.C.) 32 F. 66, 'the plaintiff goes through the form of showing that he was entitled to the daughter's services in order to reach the higher plane of wrong and injury for which he was entitled to compensation. ' Therefore, upon the foundation of loss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Snyder (In re Snyder)
...wrongful, and tortious, and being willfully done, it was, in law, malicious." 193 U.S. at 486, 24 S.Ct. 505 (quoting In re Freche, 109 F. 620 (D.N.J.1901) ) (emphasis added). Thus, both Tinker and Geiger recognize that malice is a separate requirement from intent, and one which generally re......
-
Koch v. Segler
...Allard v. La Plain, 147 Wash. 497, 266 P. 688; Ernst v. Wise, Ohio Com.Pl., 94 N.E.2d 806; for the seduction of a minor daughter, In re Freche, D.C., 109 F. 620; for libel, McDonald v. Brown, 23 R.I. 546, 51 A. 213, 58 L.R.A. 768; Thompson v. Judy, 6 Cir., 169 F. 553; National Surety Co. v.......
-
Miller v. Harpster
...Co., 102 Mo. 612; McNamara v. Transit Co., 182 Mo. 676; Davis v. Railroad, 192 Mo.App. 492; Sommers v. Keller, 153 Mo.App. 626; In re Freche, 109 F. 620; United States Reed, 86 F. 308; In re Munro, 95 F. 17; Tinker v. Caldwell, 193 U.S. 484. BROWN, C. Railey, C., concurs. Bond, P. J., concu......
-
Thompson v. Judy
...class as his right to security from violence done to his body. Tinker v. Colwell, 193 U.S. 473, 24 Sup.Ct. 505, 48 L.Ed. 754; In re Freche (D.C.) 109 F. 620; In re Maples (D.C.) 105 F. 919. And Leicester v. Hoadley, 66 Kan. 172, 71 P. 318, 65 L.R.A. 523. The order of the Circuit Court must ......