McCollister v. McCollister

Decision Date22 August 1927
Citation138 A. 472
PartiesMcCOLLISTER v. McCOLLISTER.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

On Motion from Supreme Judicial Court, Androscoggin County, at Law.

Action on the case for alienation of affections brought by Ethel M. McCollister against Lillian McCollister. Verdict was rendered for plaintiff. On motion. Motion sustained.

Argued before WILSON, C. J., and PHILBROOK, DUNN, DEASY, STCRGIS, and PATTANGALL, JJ.

Benjamin L. Berman, of Lewistown, and David V. Berman, Jacob H. Berman, and Edward J. Berman, all of Portland, for plaintiff.

F. O. Purington, of Mechanic Falls, and Harry Manser, of Auburn, for defendant.

PATTANGALL, J. Action on the case by wife for the alienation of the affections of her husband by his mother. The plaintiff obtained a verdict. The case comes before this court on motion in the usual form.

The plaintiff, then a divorcee, 28 years of age, and the mother of a son, married the son of the defendant, at Portland, November 17, 1919. He was a widower; his wife having died in the spring of the same year. He was then 36 years old and also had a son, some 5 years older than that of the plaintiff.

For about a year after the marriage the parties thereto resided in Boston, then returned to Maine and made their home in Mexico, where the husband was employed in the paper mills, until May, 1923.

The defendant, with her husband, who deceased in October, 1926, lived in Mechanic Falls. Plaintiff and defendant met but once prior to the marriage, but after that event visited each other frequently and were apparently on good terms during, at least, 6 years subsequent to that time.

In the winter of 1923, the husband of the plaintiff developed a cough, which was attributed to matters connected with his employment and which became the subject of anxiety to the defendant and to her husband, who was a physician.

Plaintiff had expressed a desire for a country home. Her husband's health seemed to demand a change of employment. Defendant was anxious that her son should be near her in her old age. And by agreement with all concerned Dr. McCollister purchased a home for the use of his son and family, located within about a mile of his own home. Plaintiff and her husband moved there and continued to reside there until they separated in March, 1926. Since the separation the husband has made his home with his mother.

Plaintiff claims that defendant interfered unwarrantedly in her domestic affairs, and, if not the immediate cause of the separation, actively prevented a reconciliation between her husband and herself. Defendant claims that the separation was caused by the unfortunate disposition of the plaintiff, by her unreasonable jealousy and constant fault finding. There is evidence tending to show that a contributing cause, if not the controlling one, was the attitude of the husband himself, who appears in the case in a most unfavorable light, and there was more or less trouble on account of the two boys.

The case was submitted to a jury under presumably proper instructions. No exceptions are presented here. No error of law is made the subject of complaint. The issues involved were purely matters of fact. Under such circumstances this court is loath to disturb the verdict. It needs no citation of authorities to support the proposition that the findings of a jury on an issue of fact should not be overturned, provided that any reasonable justification for those findings can be found in the evidence. We do not find such justification here.

Prior to 1913 no suit would lie, in this state, in favor of a wife for the alienation of her husband's affections, against any defendant, under any circumstances. Such actions were declared to be not only without authority in common law, but against public policy. Doe v. Roe, 82 Me. 503, 20 A. 83, 8 L. R. A. 833, 17 Am. St. Rep. 499; Morgan v. Martin, 92 Me. 190, 42 A. 354.

In 1913, the statute under which such actions are authorized was enacted. It reads:

"Whoever, being a female person more than eighteen years of age, debauches and carnally knows, carries on criminal conversation with, alienates the affections of, the husband of any married woman, or by any arts, enticements, and inducements deprives any married woman of the aid, comfort and society of her husband, shall be liable," etc. Laws 1913, c. 33.

It seems probable that the Legislature had in mind, in enacting this law, an entirely different situation than that presented by this case; but the language used, when given its full legal effect, obliged the court to construe it as embracing similar cases to this. Our court, however, has construed it strictly, as being in derogation of common law. Farrell v. Farrell, 118 Me. 441, 108 A. 648; Howard v. Howard, 120 Me. 479, 115 A. 259. Prior to the passage of this law in suits brought against parents for alienation, this court held the plaintiff within certain strict limitations which are not enlarged by the statute.

Presumably there is a legitimate field for actions brought under this statute and for actions based on charges of alienation generally, but the nature of the claims so asserted is such that such suits furnish a most convenient weapon for extortion and the right to bring them is a constant temptation to the unscrupulous. Every such case should be subjected, therefore, to the most careful scrutiny, not only by jurors, but by the appellate court. Especially is this true in cases in which parents are defendants.

The common disagreements which arise among...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Worth v. Worth
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • October 1, 1935
    ...evidence and is contrary to law. A careful analysis of plaintiff's evidence supports the foregoing assignment of error. McCollister v. McCollister, (Me.) 138 A. 472; Weber v. Weber, (Nebr.) 248 N.W. 642; McLery McLery, (Wis.) 202 N.W. 156; Heisler v. Heisler, (Iowa) 127 N.W. 823; Williamson......
  • Worth v. Worth, 1997
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1937
    ...276 P. 882; Worth v. Worth, 48 Wyo. 441; McLery v. McLery, (Wis.) 202 N.W. 156; Miller v. Levine, (Me.) 154 A. 174; McCollister v. McCollister, (Me.) 138 A. 472; Paup v. Pau, (Iowa) 225 N.W. 251; Spiry Spiry, (S.D.) 199 N.W. 778. The Stocker case frequently referred to by counsel for respon......
  • Summerfield v. Pringle
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1943
    ... ... This ... idea has been well emphasized by the Supreme Court of Maine ... in the case of McCollister v. McCollister , 126 Me ... 318, 138 A. 472, 473, as follows: ... "The ... common disagreements which arise among the members of a ... ...
  • Monen v. Monen
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1936
    ...of this court in Spiry v. Spiry (1924) 199 N.W. 778. See, also, Krenkle v. Selleck (128) 126 Kan. 531, 268 P. 807; McCollister v. McCollister (1927) 126 Me. 318, 138 A. 472; Shalit v. Shalit (1927) 126 Me. 291, 138 A. 70; Miller v. Miller (1933) 165 Md. 425, 169 A. 426; Oyler v. Fenner 0933......
  • 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