Lukas v. Tarpilauskas
| Decision Date | 15 March 1929 |
| Citation | 165 N.E. 513,266 Mass. 498 |
| Parties | LUKAS v. TARPILAUSKAS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; W. H. Whiting, Judge.
Action by Velie Lukas against Monika Tarpilauskas, with trustee process. On report after verdict for plaintiff. Judgment for defendant.
J. A. Treanor, Jr., of Boston, for plaintiff.
E. Z. Dymsza, of Boston, for defendant.
The defendant is the mother of Stanley Brazauskas whom, it could be found, the plaintiff had agreed to marry. The declaration alleged that the defendant ‘wickedly and maliciously intending to injure and defame the plaintiff, wrongfully induced her son’ to break the contract of marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant's son. In the Superior Court the verdict was for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff testified that she was to marry Stanley Brazauskas on October 12, 1925; that in June of that year they were riding in an automobile; that they stopped on the way and ‘she fainted and while she was in the faint he took advantage of her’; that a baby was born and Stanley was arrested on a bastardy complaint. There was evidence that the defendant was opposed to the marriage. The jury could have found that she induced her son to break the engagement.
Whether in any event an action will lie for wrongful interference with a contract to marry need not be decided. See Leonard v. Whetstone, 34 Ind. App. 383, 68 N. E. 197,107 Am. St. Rep. 252;Homan v. Hall, 102 Neb. 70, 165 N. W. 881, L. R. A. 1918C, 1195;Ableman v. Holman, 190 Wis. 112, 208 N. W. 889, 47 A. L. R. 440. Assuming without deciding that such an action lies, it cannot be maintained against a parent who induced her child to repudiate such a contract without proof of express malice. The record here shows no malice. The burden was upon the plaintiff to show that the defendant in what she said and did was prompted by malice and was not acting under the influence of natural affection for the welfare and happiness of her son. The defendant had the right to persuade him not to marry the plaintiff, and she could emphasize her objections. The mother evidently thought that it was undesirable for him to marry the plaintiff, that she would not make a good wife, that such a marriage would not result in happiness or contentment for either of the parties, and, having her son's interest at heart, she could advise him and endeavor to prevent the marriage. She could not slander the plaintiff,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brownstein v. Bricker
... ... 282. (9) ... Especially is there no right of action against parents for ... inducing their child to breach a marriage contract. Lukas ... v. Tarpilouskos, 266 Mass. 498; Minsky v ... Satenstein, 6 N. J. Misc. R. 978, 143 A. 512; ... Leonard v. Whetstone, 34 Ind.App. 383; Guida ... ...
-
Conway v. O'Brien
...as the case may be, whereby a contract to marry has been broken. The result reached is not contrary to what was decided in Lukas v. Tarpilauskas (Mass.) 165 N. E. 513. In the opinion of a majority of the court the demurrer should have been sustained, and as the declaration does not set fort......
-
Caverno v. Fellows
...to as material where such malevolence or malice, and not a justifiable purpose, was the reason for the interference. See Lukas v. Tarpilauskas, 266 Mass. 498 , 499. See Multer v. Knibbs, 193 Mass. 556 , 558. In the evidence above recited there is little, if anything, tending to show malevol......
- Zanzonico v. Zanzonico