Leicester v. Hoadley
| Decision Date | 10 January 1903 |
| Docket Number | 12,893 |
| Parties | EVA J. LEICESTER v. CORNELIA HOADLEY |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1903.
Error from Riley district court; W. S. GLASS, judge.
Ruling reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. BANKRUPTCY -- Release of Judgment for Alienation of Affections. A judgment obtained by a wife against another woman for damages sustained by the wife by reason of the alienation of the affections of her husband is not released by the discharge of the judgment debtor under proceedings in bankruptcy, where such alienation has been accomplished by schemes and devices of the judgment debtor and has resulted in the loss of support and impairment of health to the wife.
2. BANKRUPTCY -- Act Construed. Injuries so inflicted are wilful and malicious, and are to the person and property of another, within the meaning of section 17 of the United States bankrupt law.
John E Hessin, for plaintiff in error.
W. W. Harvey, and A. M. Harvey, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This action was brought by the defendant in error, Mrs. Hoadley, to procure the cancelation and discharge of the record of a judgment held against her by Mrs. Leicester. By her petition it appeared that this judgment was obtained November 11, 1899, and that, by the consideration of the United States district court for the district of Kansas, sitting in bankruptcy, she was discharged from her debts on March 6, 1900, but, notwithstanding such discharge, Mrs. Leicester was still claiming the judgment rendered in her favor to be in full force and effect. The answer filed by Mrs. Leicester admitted that she was claiming that the judgment was in full force and was not discharged by the proceedings in bankruptcy, it being such an one as was not affected by such proceedings; that the judgment was rendered in an action for damages occasioned to her by the alienation of the affections of her husband by Mrs. Hoadley. The petition of Mrs. Leicester in the action in which the judgment was rendered alleged that Mrs. Hoadley had once been married but was divorced; that by the use of secret influences, by repeated effort, by meetings at various places by day and night, by false statements wilfully and maliciously made against Mrs. Leicester, by numerous and varied marks of affection exhibited toward Mr. Leicester, notwithstanding the repeated remonstrances from the wife, the affections of her husband had been alienated from her at a time in life when she most needed them, she being forty-seven years of age, and her home broken up, her health impaired, and her peace of mind destroyed.
After trial in the original action, verdict was for the plaintiff and judgment for $ 5000 entered thereon, a copy of the journal entry of the judgment being attached to Mrs. Leicester's answer. A demurrer filed by the plaintiff, Mrs. Hoadley, to this answer was sustained and Mrs. Leicester is here asking a reversal.
We are thus called upon to construe section 17 of the bankrupt law, which is as follows:
"A discharge in bankruptcy shall release a bankrupt from all of his provable debts, except such as . . . (2) are judgments in actions for frauds, or obtaining property by false pretenses or false representations, or for wilful and malicious injuries to the person or property of another."
The questions here presented are whether the injury for which Mrs. Leicester obtained her judgment against. Mrs. Hoadley was, first, wilful and malicious, and, second, whether it was one to her person or property. What is a wilful and malicious act as applied to a civil liability? There can be no necessity of remarking that all definitions of wilfulness and maliciousness in connection with criminal actions are utterly aside and apart from this discussion. A wilful act is one done on purpose--intentionally, not accidentally. (Anderson v. How, 116 N.Y. 336, 22 N.E. 695; In re Maples, 105 F. 919.) That the acts ascribed to Mrs. Hoadley in the above statement fall within this definition will admit of no doubt. A malicious act, within any definition of the term, necessarily includes that of wilfulness, and, within the definition as applied to civil injuries, means nothing more than such acts as go to the destruction of another's legal rights without any just cause therefor, or, perhaps, rather in utter disregard of the legal rights of the injured one. A malicious act is "an unlawful act done intentionally, without just cause or excuse." (16 A. & E. Encycl. of L., 2d ed., 1112.) This is the definition found in Bromage v. Prosser, 4 B. & C. 255, and, as the authorities clearly show, has been followed in hundreds of cases since its announcement.
It is not necessary that one should be incited by a malevolent or malicious motive, such as is required to give color...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Jacobsen
...same question by the Kansas Supreme Court, where the judgment for alienation of affections was obtained by a wife. See Leicester v. Hoadley, 66 Kan. 172, 71 P. 318 (1903). In Sullivan v. Valiquette, 66 Colo. 170, 180 P. 91 (1919), the Colorado Supreme Court recognized "the right of the plai......
-
Allen v. Lindeman
...v. La Plain, 147 Wash. 497, 266 P. 688; Ernst v. Wise, Ohio Com.Pl., 94 N.E.2d 806; In Re De Bock (D.C.Cal.), 14 F.2d 675; Leicester v. Hoadley, 66 Kan. 172, 72 P. 318. Defendant attempts to distinguish these cases, arguing there is no requirement of proof of willfulness and malice as an es......
-
Koch v. Segler
...the discharge of a bankrupt has been held not to release him from a judgment for alienation of affections, Leicester v. Hoadley, 66 Kan. 172, 71 P. 318, 65 L.R.A. 523; 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 dau......
-
Allard v. La Plain
... ... 510] ... language of the bankruptcy statute above quoted. It was so ... held in Leicester v. Hoadley, 66 Kan. 172, 71 P ... 318, 65 L. R. A. 523, and Exline v. Sargent, 13-23 ... Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 180. No decision or text ... ...