Lilligren v. William J. Burns Int'l Detective Agency

• Decision Date: 08 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 19958[97].,19958[97].
• Parties: LILLIGREN v. WILLIAM J. BURNS INTERNATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

135 Minn. 60

160 N.W. 203

LILLIGREN

v.WILLIAM J. BURNS INTERNATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY et al.

No. 19958[97].

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 8, 1916.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Daniel Fish, Judge.

Action by Arthur Lilligren against the William J. Burns International Detective Agency and another. Action dismissed. From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

In order to recover damages for alienating the affections of his wife, a husband must show that the defendant took an active and intentional part in causing the estrangement. Such an action will not lie where it is grounded solely upon the negligence of the defendant. Robertson & Bonner and John Fitzgerald, all of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Selover, Schultz & Selover, of Minneapolis, for respondents.

TAYLOR, C.

The following will serve as a brief outline of the allegations in plaintiff's complaint: That defendants operated a detective agency in the city of Minneapolis doing a general detective business for hire, and held themselves out to the public as skillful in such business and in obtaining private information; that plaintiff employed them to obtain definite and certain information regarding the actions and habits of his wife and the places where she spent her time when away from home; that defendants agreed to investigate and secure the desired information; that plaintiff gave defendant a full and accurate description of his wife together with her name and place of residence; that through negligence and carelessness defendants, instead of shadowing plaintiff's wife and securing information as to her actions, whereabouts and general conduct, shadowed another woman who was unknown to plaintiff, and reported her conduct to plaintiff as the conduct of his wife; that in consequence thereof defendants falsely reported that plaintiff's wife kept company with other men and conducted herself in an immoral manner; that, relying upon the truth of such reports, plaintiff charged his wife with misconduct; that his wife, being wholly innocent of any misconduct, abandoned him, and has ever since refused to live with or return to him; and that his home has been broken up and his wife's affections forever alienated. The complaint also alleged the amount paid defendant for its services and demanded damages in a large amount for the alienation of his wife's affections. At the opening of the trial plaintiff expressly waived the right to recover back the sum paid for services, and rested his case solely upon the proposition that he was entitled to recover general damages for the alienation of his wife's affections. Thereupon the court sustained an objection to the reception of any evidence under the complaint and dismissed the suit on the ground that the complaint as modified by the express waiver failed to state a cause of action. Plaintiff appealed from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The question presented is whether, upon the facts stated in the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendant for the alienation of his wife's affections. To determine this question, we must consider and apply the rules of law governing that class of actions.

It is well settled that either husband or wife, in order to recover damages from a third party for alienating the affections of the other, must show that such third party took an active and intentional part in causing the estrangement. Powers v. Sumbler, 83 Kan. 1, 110 Pac. 97;Nevins v. Nevins, 68 Kan. 410, 75 Pac. 492;Rinehart v. Bills, 82 Mo. 534, 52 Am. Rep. 385;Scott v. O'Brien, 129 Ky. 1, 110 S. W. 260,16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 742, 130 Am. St. Rep. 419;Warner v. Miller, 17 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 221;Tasker v. Stanley, 153 Mass. 148, 26 N. E....