Ridenhour v. Miller
| Decision Date | 31 October 1945 |
| Docket Number | 381 |
| Citation | 35 S.E.2d 611,225 N.C. 543 |
| Parties | RIDENHOUR v. MILLER et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
This is an action instituted by plaintiff against the defendants, who are sisters of plaintiff's wife alleging that defendants unlawfully and maliciously alienated the affections of his wife, and seeking damages therefor.
The pertinent facts are substantially as follows: The plaintiff alleges that the defendants maliciously caused the plaintiff's wife to leave him on 14 December, 1943. That the defendants 'set about a course of action, a course of speech, and a course of conduct, which was knowingly purposely, wrongfully, ruthlessly, wickedly and maliciously designed and planned to alienate and destroy the genuine love and affection which this plaintiff's wife held for him and to wreck and destroy the home of this plaintiff and his wife, and to destroy their happiness, and to induce, procure and compel, by virtue of their superior positions and financial power, this plaintiff's wife to leave and abandon him, and to abandon and forsake this plaintiff, the home and the two children which had been born to the marriage.'
Plaintiff testified that prior to the separation the defendants gave his wife and children many presents, consisting of clothing food, and articles of furniture for the home, but that he did not object to Mrs. Kluttz and Mrs. Miller helping his wife.
On the morning of 14 December, 1943, the plaintiff's wife announced she was leaving him. She assigned three reasons according to plaintiff's testimony, ' Immediately after plaintiff's wife announced her intention to leave him, the plaintiff took her to Mr. Hartsell's office to see if they could get a divorce and they were informed they had no grounds for divorce. That afternoon, the defendant, Mrs. Kluttz, was in the Ridenhour home and said: 'I am mighty sorry, Carl, you have two fine children, they certainly are nice and obedient * * * if you can't get along together it is better for you to be separated. ' Mrs. Ridenhour sent for the other defendant and upon her arrival, in the presence of Mrs. Kluttz, Mrs. Ridenhour and the plaintiff, Mrs. Miler said: 'Carl, I didn't know anything about this. ' The plaintiff said 'Neither of you (referring to these defendants) tried to reconcile or advise Mrs. Ridenhour or myself. ' The plaintiff further testified that so far as he knew Mrs. Miller did not know anything about their trouble until the day they separated. That up to the day of separation he had never heard any complaint from his wife or anyone else about conditions in the home not being satisfactory.
On 15 December, 1943, these same parties undertook to divide up the household goods of the Ridenhours and to reach an agreement about the sale of the home to Mrs. Ridenhour. In this connection, the plaintiff testified: 'Mrs. Miller was trying to advise to the best of her ability. ' Later, as Mrs. Miller was leaving, the plaintiff told her she had broken up his home, she had taken his wife and children. Mrs. Miller replied: 'Yes, Carl Ridenhour, and I will do it again. ' Mrs. Ridenhour and her two minor children had gone to the Miller home the day before and they continued to live there for several months after the separation.
There is evidence that plaintiff tried almost daily to see his wife and children while they were living in the Miller home, later in the Kluttz home, and still later in the home of a Mrs. Litaker. These defendants were not friendly at all times, sometimes refusing to admit plaintiff into their respective homes. The wife has likewise refused to see him in her present home, where she and her children reside with Mrs. Litaker.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, judgment of nonsuit was entered. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court assigning...
To continue reading
Request your trial