Love v. Love

• Citation: 98 Mo. App. 562,73 S.W. 255
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Decision Date: 02 March 1903
• Parties: LOVE v. LOVE et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>

73 S.W. 255

98 Mo. App. 562

LOVE v. LOVE et al.^*

Court of Appeals at Kansas City, Missouri.

March 2, 1903.

HUSBAND AND WIFE—ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS—RIGHTS OF PARENTS—EVIDENCE—ILL WILL OF WITNESS — HEARSAY — FINANCIAL CONDITION OF DEFENDANT—APPEAL—HARMLESS ERROR—FAILURE TO DEMUR—EXCESSIVE VERDICT.

1. In an action by a wife for the alienation of her husband's affections by his father and mother, evidence showing that, though the husband married plaintiff reluctantly, and against the wishes of his parents, after seducing her, he was kind to her after the marriage, and that the father and mother were instrumental in inducing the husband to leave plaintiff, was sufficient to support a verdict for plaintiff.

2. Parents are not justified in disrupting, without cause, marriage ties entered into by their minor son, though entered into without their consent and against their wishes.

3. The intentional enticement of the husband to separate from his wife is in itself a wrongful and unlawful act.

4. An instruction that the jury might assess punitive damages was, if error, harmless, where the jury refused to assess such damages.

5. Under Rev. St. 1899, § 672, providing that no judgment shall be reversed for the want of any allegation or averment on account of which omission a demurrer could have been sustained, defendants cannot, after trial and judgment, first object that a joint judgment against them cannot stand because no joint cause of action was alleged.

6. In an action for alienation of plaintiff's husband's affections, defendants introduced in evidence a letter from plaintiff's brother to one of defendants, the postscript of which was as follows, "You can get out of this by giving me $500, or I will fill you full of lead." The brother denied the writing of the postscript. Held, that the exclusion of the postscript was not error, in the absence of proof by defendants that the brother wrote it.

7. Where the object of evidence was to show ill will of a witness toward a party, its exclusion was harmless when that fact was abundantly proven by other evidence.

8. In an action for alienation of affections of plaintiff's husband, evidence that the husband told defendant, his father, that he was compelled to marry plaintiff by reason of the threats of her brother to kill him if he did not, was properly excluded.

9. In an action for alienation of the affections of plaintiff's husband, evidence by plaintiff of financial condition of defendants was properly admitted.

10. In an action for the alienation of plaintiff's husband's affections, the admission of declarations of defendant, the husband's father, that he refused to consent to the marriage, though error, was harmless, as all the evidence tended to show that fact, and it was practically admitted.

11. In an action for the alienation of plaintiff's husband's affections, the evidence showed that the husband had seduced plaintiff, and married her reluctantly; that he did not live with her at all through fear of defendants, his parents; and soon afterwards left the state at their instance, and plaintiff afterwards gave birth to a child. Held, that a verdict of $2,250 was not excessive.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Maries County; James E. Hazell, Judge.

Action by Ella Love against John E. Love and Cynthia A. Love. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

W. S. Pope and Thos. M. & Cyrus H. Jones, for appellants. Crites & Garrison, for respondent.

BROADDUS, J.

This is a suit by the plaintiff against the defendants for alienating the affections and depriving her of the assistance and society of her husband, John Rainey Love. The facts disclosed were that on the 13th day of April, 1900, the plaintiff and said John Rainey Love were married in the county of Maries, Missouri, and that they cohabited as husband and wife for a short time, when he abandoned the plaintiff and left the state. The evidence tended to show that the marriage was compulsory upon the husband. At the time of the marriage the plaintiff was about 17 and the husband about 19 years of age. It was shown that the former lived with her mother, a widow woman, and that the latter lived with his parents, the defendants herein. It is also to be inferred from the evidence that plaintiff's relatives were laboring under the belief that she had been seduced by young Love; and that, evidently acting under such belief, W. E. Heady and another brother of plaintiff went to defendants' home, and made a charge to that effect to John E. Love, in the presence of the son, John Rainey Love, and demanded that the latter marry their sister; that defendant refused to give his consent to such marriage, whereupon said Heady declared that, if something was not done at once, he would have the son arrested immediately. However, it appears that in the afternoon of the same day young Love, in company with the said named Heady, obtained a license for the marriage by means of an order alleged to have been signed by his father, authorizing the issuance of the same, and that later on in the evening said John Rainey Love and the plaintiff herein were married, and cohabited together as man and wife until the following morning, when the former returned to the home of his parents. It is claimed by defendants that said written order purporting to be signed by John E. Love, and by means of which said marriage license was secured, was a fictitious or bogus order. The plaintiff testified that after the night of the marriage her husband visited her about seven times, and that he would come in the evening, and stay with her until about 3 o'clock the next morning, when he would go home to his parents, in order to prevent them from having knowledge that he was staying with her; but that finally the husband, on the 9th day of July, 1900, left the state, and wholly abandoned plaintiff. She also testified that her husband was kind and affectionate to her after their marriage, and that after his disappearance a child was born to her, of which he was the father. Also that after her husband had abandoned her she met defendant John E. Love on the highway, and spoke to him, calling him "Mr. Love," when he said to her, "Well, you and Rainey is married, are you?" to which she answered, "Yes, sir," whereupon he said, "Well, I sent Rainey off. He shan't live with you." And it was further shown by a witness in the case that shortly prior to the husband's departure from the country he had heard the defendant Cynthia A. Love say to her son, John Rainey Love, that she would give him $1,500 if he would leave.

On the trial the plaintiff, over the objections of the defendants, was permitted to prove that the latter were opposed to the marriage. The defendants offered to prove a conversation had with the said son soon after the marriage, in which he said that he "was compelled to marry plaintiff on account of threats made against him by her brothers; that they threatened to kill him, and that was the reason he married her." The court, upon objection of plaintiff, excluded the evidence. When John E. Love was testifying, the plaintiff, against defendants' objections, was allowed to question him as to his financial condition. This is assigned by appellant as error, as was the refusal of the court to permit defendants to read an entire letter of witness Heady to appellant John E. Love, the part omitted being the...