Oakman v. Belden

• Decision Date: 30 June 1900
• Citation: 47 A. 553,94 Me. 280
• Parties: OAKMAN v. BELDEN et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

47 A. 553

94 Me. 280

OAKMAN

v. BELDEN et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

June 30, 1900.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme Judicial court, Kennebec county.

Action by Grant Oakman against James F. Belden and another.

Action on the case for alienating the affections of the plaintiff's wife by the defendants, who are her parents. The plea was the general issue. The action was tried to a jury in this court below at the October term of 1899, in Kennebec county, when the Jury returned a verdict ef $1,154 for the plaintiff. Motion for a new trial, and exceptions by defendants. Exceptions sustained.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and HASKELL, WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, SAVAGE, and POWERS, JJ.

Jos. Williamson, Jr., and L. A. Burleigh, for plaintiff.

S. S. & F. E. Brown, for defendants.

SAVAGE, J. Action on the case by husband for the alienation of the affections of his wife by her parents, who are the defendants. The plaintiff obtained a verdict.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants unjustifiably interfered in his domestic affairs, and, with intent to break up the harmonious and affectionate relations existing between him and his wife, wrongfully enticed, advised, and persuaded her to leave him, which she did. The defendants, on the other hand, deny that they persuaded their daughter to leave her husband, and they claim, in addition, that such was the daughter's age and condition of health, and such was the plaintiff's cruel and abusive conduct towards her, endangering her health and destroying her peace of mind, they were Justified in doing all that the evidence for the plaintiff tends to show that they did, even assuming it to be true. It is admitted that the marriage was clandestine, and against the will of the defendants, and that the wife returned to their home not later than three weeks after the marriage, and has since remained there.

The jury were instructed that if the separation of the plaintiff's wife from him "was the result of the active interference of the parents," if they "put in their oar," and if "the wife would have gone back if it had not been for their interference, either by threats, persuasions, or arguments, * * * they have done him a wrong, and he is entitled to compensation for that wrong." To this instruction the defendants except, and we are now to inquire whether this instruction was correct, in view of the evidence and the contentions of the parties.

Whoever wrongfully interferes in the relations of husband and wife, and entices the wife to leave the husband, is liable to him in damages. While a stranger may, without liability, harbor a wife who has left her husband, he may not persuade her to leave him, or not to return to him. Though she may have Just grounds for a separation, yet she may choose to return, and a stranger has no right to intermeddle, and if he does so voluntarily he must answer the consequences. Modisett v. McPike, 74 Mo. 630. But it is universally conceded that a parent stands on different ground. Though the wife has gone cut from the parental home, and has joined her husband "for better, for worse," and though she owes to him marital allegiance and he possesses the first and the superior right to her affection and comfort and society, it is nevertheless true that the parental relation is not ended, nor has parental affection and duty ended. A husband may be false to his marital obligations, he may be immoral and indecent, he may be grossly cruel and abusive, he may become a confirmed drunkard, his conduct towards her may be such as to endanger health, and entirely destroy peace and comfort, so that she may properly leave him. In such case, to whom shall she fly, if not to her pareuts? And from whom shall she seek advice, if not from her parents? And such advice may, we think, be enforced by reasonable arguments. A parent may not with hostile, wicked, or malicious intent break up the relations between his daughter and her husband. He may not do this simply because he is displeased with the marriage, or because it was against his will, or because he wishes the marriage relation to continue no longer. But a parent may advise his daughter, in good faith and for her good, to leave her husband, if he, on reasonable grounds, believes that the further continuance of the marriage relation tends to injure her health, or to destroy her peace of mind, so that she would be justified in leaving him. A parent may, in such case, persuade his daughter. He may use proper and reasonable arguments, drawn, it may be, from his greater knowledge and wider experience. Whether the motive was proper or improper is always to be considered. Whether the persuasion or the argument is proper and reasonable, under the conditions presented to the parent's mind, is also always to be considered. It may turn out that the parent acted upon mistaken premises, or upon false information, or his advice and his interference may have been unfortunate; still, we repeat, if he acts in good faith, for the daughter's good, upon reasonable grounds of belief, he is not liable to the husband.

This conclusion is supported by the authorities. Chancellor Kent in...