Rheudasil v. Clower
| Decision Date | 23 July 1954 |
| Parties | , 197 Tenn. 27, 46 A.L.R.2d 1083 RHEUDASIL v. CLOWER. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Alex Barnett, Memphis, for plaintiff in error.
Hardison, Walton & Collins, Memphis, for defendant in error.
This was an action instituted by Rheudasil to recover damages from Clower for alienation of his wife's affections. Clower demurred to the one count declaration, as amended, on the ground that this declaration disclosed it to be a fact that the one year statute of limitations barred the action. The two questions presented by Rheudasil's appeal in error are (1) when did the cause of action arise and (2) which statute of limitations applies.
The declaration, after alleging in some detail the pursuit by Clower of Rheudasil's wife over a long period of time, then avers that the result was to separate this husband and wife. She subsequently procured a divorce and married Clower. As a result of the affair between Clower and his wife, Rheudasil left her on March 5, 1951, returned on November 23, 1951, with final separation occurring on November 25, 1951. With reference to his separation of March 5, 1951, this husband's declaration says that at that time 'it was very obvious to the plaintiff that he was losing the love, affection, and consortium of his wife because of the evil designs, diabolical ways, trickery, scheming, and connivance on the part of the defendant'. This can only mean that the husband became aware not later than March 5, 1951 of the alienation of his wife's affections by defendant.
The husband contends that his cause of action did not arise until the last separation, November 25, 1951. His suit was instituted about ten months thereafter. Clower insists that it arose not later than March 5, 1951, it being alleged that the husband learned not later than that date of the wrong that Clower had done him. This date is approxmiately eighteen months before the husband instituted his suit. This controversy must first be settled.
In Broidioi v. Hall, 188 Tenn. 236, 238, 218 S.W.2d 737, 738, it was held that the statute of limitations in a case of this character begins to run when the 'spouse knows that he or she has a cause of action'. In Scates v. Nailling, 196 Tenn. ----, 268 S.W.2d 561, 562, Obion Law, decided on March 21, it was held that an action of this kind may be instituted 'immediately after the society, affection and conjugal fellowship or consortium of the husband or wife are lost'. It follows that Rheudasil's cause of action arose eighteen months before he instituted suit. Is it barred by any of our statutes of limitations?
Our various statutes of limitations for 'Actions Other Than Real' are carried in the Code commencing at section 8592. An examination of these Code sections discloses the fact that the limitation applicable to an alienation of affection suit must either fall under the one year statute carried at section 8595 or the ten year statute providing for 'all other cases not expressly provided for' carried at 8601.
Since these statutes of limitations were enacted for the 'peace of society', Peck v. Bullard, 21...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanover v. Ruch
...valid marriage between the spouses and sexual intercourse between defendant and plaintiff's spouse during coverture. Rheudasil v. Clower, 197 Tenn. 27, 270 S.W.2d 345 (1953); Darnell v. McNichols, 22 Tenn.App. 287, 122 S.W.2d 808 (1938). Alienation of the spouse's affections is not a necess......
-
Roberts v. Berry, 75-2231
...Hall, 188 Tenn. 236, 218 S.W.2d 737 (1949); Scates v. Nailling, 196 Tenn. 508, 268 S.W.2d 561 (1954), and Rheudasil v. Clower, 197 Tenn. 27, 270 S.W.2d 345, 46 A.L.R.2d 1083 (1954), applied the one-year statute to alienation of affection claims "incidental" to criminal conversation claims. ......
-
Stringer v. Board of Trustees of Edward W. Sparrow Hospital
...tangible, or physical damage[62 MICHAPP 700] in the classic tort sense'. In addition, plaintiff cites the Tennessee case of Rheudasil v. Clower, 197 Tenn. 27, 270 N.W.2d 345 (1954), where the phrase 'injuries to the person', contained in the Tennessee statute of limitations, was construed t......
-
Fennell v. Littlejohn
...Criminal conversation means adulterous relations between the defendant and the spouse of the plaintiff. Rheudasil v. Clower, 197 Tenn. 27, 270 S.W.2d 345, 46 A.L.R.2d 1083. And to sustain the action it was necessary for the plaintiff to establish two things, namely: (1) The marriage between......