Kleist v. Breitung
| Decision Date | 11 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 215. |
| Citation | 232 F. 555 |
| Parties | KLEIST v. BREITUNG et ux. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
E. C Crowley, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
Marvin Hooker & Roosevelt, of New York City (Delancey Nicoll and Courtland V. Anable, both of New York City, S.W. Shaull, of Tropico Cal., and Henry S. Hooker, of New York City, of counsel), for defendants in error.
Before COXE and WARD, Circuit Judges, and MAYER, District Judge.
There can be no doubt that the secret marriage contracted between the plaintiff and the defendants' daughter was a mesalliance calculated to excite the gravest apprehensions for the future happiness of their daughter who was their only child. The plaintiff was five years her senior and had been employed as a coachman by a family residing next door to the defendants at Marquette, Mich., and was intimate with their servants. The marriage took place in New York and was not discovered by the defendants until a week later, while they were guests of the St. Regis hotel. The first interview between the plaintiff and the defendants occurred at the hotel on December 2, 1913. The conduct of the defendants on that and subsequent occasions must be gauged by their disappointment, mortification and chagrin on finding that their only daughter had contracted a marriage which in all probability would wreck her happiness and end in disaster. The words used by a distracted mother in such circumstances may be attributed as well to grief at the discovery that her daughter's career has ended in an unfortunate marriage as to malice. That a woman in such circumstances should be calm, judicial and friendly at her first interview with the man who has caused her this mortification and sorrow is hardly to be expected. It is alleged that she said to the plaintiff:
'We are going to annul the marriage and if you don't annul it, why she will get a divorce from you anyway.'
That she said this is denied by the defendants, but, assuming that it was said, it does not show malice, but rather a very limited knowledge of the law on the part of an agitated mother. It was perfectly natural that both the defendants should inquire into the details of the marriage for the purpose of having it annulled if illegal. The plaintiff's testimony that Breitung threatened to have him arrested for stealing his (Breitung's) silk socks is in the same category. If the threat were made seriously it was while Breitung was still angry over the discovery of the secret marriage. Nothing ever came of the threat and both parties, apparently, agreed to the fulfillment of the antenuptial agreement between the plaintiff and Juliet that she should live at home until he was able to care for her properly, and in the meantime the marriage was to be kept a secret. Breitung promised to get the plaintiff employment and offered him a place in a mine in New Mexico where he could learn mining engineering. If he made good he was to have Juliet in six months and was to correspond with her in the meantime. The plaintiff testified:
'When I accepted the position Mrs. Breitung put her arm around me, told me 'I hope you will do well down in this new place and I hope Juliet will be with you some day.''
All this seems wholly incompatible with the presence of malice. The pretense that the defendants kept the young people apart is not sustained by the proof, especially in view of the testimony of the plaintiff.
Up to the time that the plaintiff left New York, on Christmas Day, 1913, there is no proof that the wife's affections had been alienated. In answer to the motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of the evidence, counsel for the plaintiff stated as follows:
'Then, thirdly, we have the fact that up to the time of the departure of the plaintiff for the West on Christmas Day, 1913, the love continued; that is to say, one of the most ardent of all the love letters was written on the night before Christmas and received Christmas Day, so that we have, up to the time of the plaintiff's departure for the West, this condition of affection continuing, so that the change that has occurred must have begun during the absence of the plaintiff.'
Manifestly the assertion that the alleged improper acts of the defendants, prior to the plaintiff's departure for the West, show a desire to alienate his wife's affections must be abandoned, in view of that admission that all the efforts of the defendants had utterly failed to alienate her affections.
There is absolutely no testimony of any act on the part of the defendants, or either of them, after the plaintiff's departure which can be regarded as an attempt to alienate their daughter's affections. Her account of the conversations with the plaintiff after his return from the southwest does not indicate that there was any disposition on the part of the defendants, or either of them, to influence her against her husband. The first talk was over the telephone, Juliet having called up the plaintiff to make an engagement with him to meet her at the Waldorf hotel on the following day.
At the meeting the next day the plaintiff, Juliet and her father were present. The plaintiff's account of this interview is as follows:
'I was rather glad to see Juliet and I just shook hands with her. She seemed to back away from me, and I said, 'What is all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Worth v. Worth
... ... v. Spiry, (S.D.) 199 N.W. 778; Williamson v ... Williamson, (Neb.) 231 N.W. 506; Miller v. Levine, ... (Me.) 154 A. 174; Kleist v. Breitung, 232 F ... 555, (2d Cir.). The court erred in refusing to give ... defendants' requested instruction numbered C. This ... ...
-
Worth v. Worth, 1997
... ... Pickett of Cheyenne ... The ... evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. Worth v ... Worth, 48 Wyo. 441; Kleist v. Breitung, 232 F ... 555; Spiry v. Spiry, (S. D.) 199 N.W. 778; ... Williamson v. Williamson, (Nebr.) 231 N.W. 506; ... Beckler v. Yates, ... ...
-
Pierson v. Pierson
...resentment at the sudden termination of the ambitious career which they had probably marked out for their daughter." Kleist v. Breitung et al. (C. C. A.) 232 F. 555, 558. Plaintiff did not succeed in establishing by a preponderance of testimony malice on the part of the defendant The burden......
-
Nelson v. Nelson
...in separating this couple. It was not long thereafter that suit for divorce was instituted. The law is well stated in Kliest v. Breitung, 232 F. 555, 146 C.C.A. 513, Cas. 1917E, 1014, that-- 'Parents are justified in giving counsel and advice to a daughter who has contracted a marriage with......