Porter v. Heishman
| Decision Date | 27 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | 30255 |
| Citation | 154 N.W. 503,175 Iowa 335 |
| Parties | SOPHIA PORTER, Appellee, v. GRACE HEISHMAN, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1916.
Appeal from Grinnell Superior Court.--P. G. NORRIS, Judge.
ACTION at law to recover damages from the defendant for the alienation of the affections of plaintiff's husband. Upon issues joined, the case was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $ 10,000 and defendant appeals.--Reversed and Remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.
J. H Patton and W. R. Lewis, for appellant.
Bray, Shifflet & Wilkie, for appellee.
I.
Plaintiff was married to Art Porter in January of the year 1902. She was his senior by several years, and at the time of his marriage, the husband was a minor. After marriage, they lived on a farm for some years, when they, in the year 1909, moved to Grinnell, and shortly thereafter, the husband became interested in the automobile business, conducting a small garage and repair shop.
Defendant is the wife of E. C. Heishman, and they, too, lived on a farm for some years before moving to Grinnell, some time in the year 1908. At the time of trial, defendant was about 42 years of age, and she had two sons, one 21 and the other 19 years of age. According to the record, defendant became acquainted with Art Porter some time in the year 1911, the exact time being in dispute; but the acquaintanceship was not earlier than February and not later than the fall of that year. The defendant's husband owned an automobile, and had occasion to have it repaired and to buy supplies for it from Art Porter. This commenced some time in the fall of the year 1911. Some time in the fall of 1911, the Porter family arranged to get milk from the Heishmans, and, for some months, either plaintiff's husband went for it or it was delivered to the Porters by one of the defendant's boys. At the time when plaintiff was getting milk, he (Art Porter) would go frequently into the defendant's house and play cards with defendant's husband or the boys. Porter rode in the Heishman auto several times during the year 1911, and, becoming an agent for the sale of what is known as the Carter car, he thought the Heishmans a good prospect, and took them riding several times in one of these cars. Finally the family became interested in the new car and agreed upon its purchase, delivery to be made at Des Moines on the fourth day of July, 1912. Defendant had not met the plaintiff until that day, when plaintiff insisted upon making the trip to Des Moines with the Heishmans, to get the car. On the day preceding, plaintiff and her husband had some words about the Des Moines trip and regarding the defendant; and plaintiff testified that, on this occasion, her husband struck her, knocking her down and giving her a black eye. On the next day, plaintiff and her husband and defendant and her husband went to Des Moines to get the car. All rode in the car that day and spent part of the afternoon in one of the parks in the city; but they did not drive the car home. Plaintiff says that this was by reason of a prior agreement between her husband and Mrs. Heishman that they would not take it back to Grinnell with them that day, but would return and bring it back when plaintiff was not along. In any event, plaintiff's husband, defendant and one of her sons went to Des Moines on the sixth day of July and brought the car back to Grinnell. It was arranged at the time of the purchase that the car should be kept at Art Porter's garage after it was brought home, and that Porter should teach the defendant how to drive it. There was also some kind of an arrangement to store the auto without expense by Porter, in order that he might use it for demonstrating purposes. Plaintiff says that she became suspicious of her husband's conduct with defendant some time prior to the making of the Des Moines trip, and had trouble with him over his conduct with Mrs. Heishman; and, on the morning of July 4th, said to defendant that there was too much talk going around about her riding around town so much with plaintiff's husband. This was squarely denied by defendant, who says that no complaint was made to her until about Christmas of the year 1912.
To all outward appearances, the relations between the two families were amicable until the month of December, when plaintiff upbraided the defendant because of the talk about her and plaintiff's husband. This was again repeated in January, 1913, in a talk between plaintiff and defendant and her husband. Before that, the parties were frequently together; they took many rides in automobiles around the city and into the country, attended band concerts and moving picture shows, and the defendant and her family had Thanks-giving dinner at the Porter home. All family relations were broken between plaintiff and the defendant and her family at this January meeting, and plaintiff's husband left home and did not return until February 27, 1913, remaining but for a few days, and then taking what was supposed to be his final departure, but returning again in May, after plaintiff had brought this suit, when it is claimed he threatened to kill her, and locked her in a bathroom until she would sign some papers disposing of this action. In September of the year 1912, plaintiff's husband and defendant attended the Marshalltown Fair together, taking defendant's machine there for demonstrating purposes. According to some of the witnesses, and as stated by defendant, she went under an arrangement that she should receive pay for her time while there, for allowing her car to be used and for assisting in making sales. The two stayed in Marshalltown for several days, until they were located by the plaintiff. After that, they made a trip together in company with defendant's sister-in-law and another man, and there is ample testimony, if believed by a jury, to show that the plaintiff's husband and the defendant had sexual intercourse on both occasions. There is also a great deal of testimony tending to show that plaintiff's husband was frequently at defendant's house at all times of the day and night, ofttimes when defendant's family was away from home; that defendant was daily and often several times a day at the Porter garage; that they had long daily conversations over the telephone; and that plaintiff's husband called defendant endearing names. They were seen quite often together at Des Moines and Colfax, sometimes at hotels and at other times on the street, or in stores. There is also testimony that plaintiff's husband purchased clothing and gave it to the defendant, although this is denied by defendant and her husband.
Although this is but a part of the record, enough has been recited to show that there is ample testimony to support a verdict for the plaintiff in some amount, and that there is no merit in the defendant's contention that plaintiff did not make out a case for the jury.
II. Some rulings on testimony are challenged. We shall refer to but one of them, as the others are manifestly correct, and need no attention, because they involve no new or doubtful propositions. One R. J. Patterson, a witness for the plaintiff, gave very material and damaging testimony regarding the conduct of plaintiff's husband and the defendant while at the Marshalltown Fair. For the purpose of showing his interest in the case and his hostility to the defendant, the following record was made:
To continue reading
Request your trial