Lannigan v. Lannigan

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtBRALEY
Citation110 N.E. 285,222 Mass. 198
Decision Date22 November 1915
PartiesLANNIGAN v. LANNIGAN.

222 Mass. 198
110 N.E. 285

LANNIGAN
v.
LANNIGAN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Nov. 22, 1915.


Exceptions from Superior Court, Essex County; J. F. Quinn, Judge.

Action by Maud F. Lannigan against James E. Lannigan for alienating her husband's affections. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

[110 N.E. 286]

Defendant asked the court to rule: (1) That the evidence in the case is insufficient to overcome the presumption that in all that defendant did or said, he acted under the influence of natural affection and for what he believed to be the real good of his son. (2) That on all the evidence plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The court refused so to rule. The jury returned a verdict of $22,500 for plaintiff which the court reduced to $10,000, and defendant alleged exceptions.

Wm. [222 Mass. 199]R. Scharton, of Boston, and Jas. H. Maguire, of Jamaica Plains, for plaintiff.


Sweeney & Cox, of Lawrence, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

The only questions on the record are whether the defendant's requests for rulings that the evidence is insufficient to overcome the presumption that in all the defendant said and did he acted under the influence of natural affection and for what he conceived to be the real good of his son, and that ‘upon all the evidence in the case the plaintiff is not entitled to recover,’ [222 Mass. 200]should have been given. The plaintiff sues her father-in-law for alienation of her husband's affections and for enticing him to leave her home whereby she lost his ‘company, society, aid and assistance.’ To entitle her to go to the jury she was required to show that the defendant's conduct was actuated by malice, and that through his efforts her husband's affections were alienated, and he was induced to separate from her. A father from parental affection may advise his son to discontinue the marital relation, and no action lies if such advice honestly given results in a separation. But if because of hostility and ill will to his son's wife he procures the separation, her conjugal rights are invaded, justification fails, malice is proved, and damages may be recovered. Geromini v. Brunelle, 214 Mass. 492, 102 N. E. 67,46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 465, and cases cited; Nolin v. Pearson, 191 Mass. 283, 77 N. E. 890,4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 643, 114 Am. St. Rep. 605,6 Ann. Cas. 658. The question ordinarily is one of fact. If not expressly conceded, the following facts were uncontroverted. The plaintiff's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Woodhouse v. Woodhouse
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • October 7, 1925
    ...43 Neb. 269, 61 N. W. 577, 27 L. R. A. 120, 47 Am. St. Rep. 759; Love v. Love, 98 Mo. App. 562, 73 S. W. 255; Lanigan v. Lanigan, 222 Mass. 198, 110 N. E. 285; McLery v. McLery, 186 Wis. 137, 202 N. W. 156; Crowell v. Jeffries, 79 Ind. App. 513, 134 N. E. 908, 137 N. E. 556; note 46 L. R. A......
  • Worth v. Worth, 1997
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 8, 1937
    ...a verdict. Heisler v. Heisler, supra; Rath v. Rath, (Neb.) 89 N.W. 612; Nevins v. Nevins, (Kans.) 75 P. 492; Lannigan v. Lannigan, (Mass.) 110 N.E. 285. The case of Stocker v. Stocker, 36 A. L. R. 1063, is on all fours with the case at bar. Defendant's wrong is established by wrongful condu......
  • Cutter v. Cooper
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 8, 1920
    ...relations with her, there could be little or no recovery under the first count for simple alienation of affections. Lanigan v. Lanigan, 222 Mass. 198, 200, 110 N. E. 285;Servis v. Servis, 172 N. Y. 438, 65 N. E. 270. Even under the second count, where the essential injury alleged to the hus......
  • Poulos v. Poulos
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 13, 1967
    ...that Georgia acted with such aggressiveness and vehemence as to constitute an abuse of Page 891 the privilege. See Lanigan v. Lanigan, 222 Mass. 198, 110 N.E. Georgia's second contention is that 'there is no evidence of parental pressure which causally effected the separation.' We do not ag......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Woodhouse v. Woodhouse
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • October 7, 1925
    ...43 Neb. 269, 61 N. W. 577, 27 L. R. A. 120, 47 Am. St. Rep. 759; Love v. Love, 98 Mo. App. 562, 73 S. W. 255; Lanigan v. Lanigan, 222 Mass. 198, 110 N. E. 285; McLery v. McLery, 186 Wis. 137, 202 N. W. 156; Crowell v. Jeffries, 79 Ind. App. 513, 134 N. E. 908, 137 N. E. 556; note 46 L. R. A......
  • Worth v. Worth, 1997
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 8, 1937
    ...a verdict. Heisler v. Heisler, supra; Rath v. Rath, (Neb.) 89 N.W. 612; Nevins v. Nevins, (Kans.) 75 P. 492; Lannigan v. Lannigan, (Mass.) 110 N.E. 285. The case of Stocker v. Stocker, 36 A. L. R. 1063, is on all fours with the case at bar. Defendant's wrong is established by wrongful condu......
  • Cutter v. Cooper
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 8, 1920
    ...relations with her, there could be little or no recovery under the first count for simple alienation of affections. Lanigan v. Lanigan, 222 Mass. 198, 200, 110 N. E. 285;Servis v. Servis, 172 N. Y. 438, 65 N. E. 270. Even under the second count, where the essential injury alleged to the hus......
  • Poulos v. Poulos
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 13, 1967
    ...that Georgia acted with such aggressiveness and vehemence as to constitute an abuse of Page 891 the privilege. See Lanigan v. Lanigan, 222 Mass. 198, 110 N.E. Georgia's second contention is that 'there is no evidence of parental pressure which causally effected the separation.' We do not ag......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT