Rinehart v. Bills

• Decision Date: 31 October 1884
• Citation: 82 Mo. 534
• Parties: RINEHART, Appellant, v. BILLS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

82 Mo. 534

RINEHART, Appellant,

v.BILLS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1884.

Appeal from Knox Circuit Court.--HON. B. E. TURNER, Judge.

AFFIRMED

O. D. Jones for appellant.

There must be proof of defilement of the wife, or of having enticed her away to sustain the action. Mere solicitations are not sufficient. Gilchrist v. Bale, 8 Watts 355; Bigelow's Lead. Cases on Torts, p. 328; Hutchinson v. Peck, 5 John. 196; Modisett v. McPike, 74 Mo. 636. There was no cause of action to compromise, hence there was no consideration for the note. Wade v. Simeon, 2 C. B. 548; Sav. B'k v. Concord, 15 N. H. 119; Long v. Towle, 42 Mo. 545.

Dysart & Mitchell for respondent.

The plaintiff assumes that because the pleadings do not show that defendant's wife was debauched or enticed away he had no right of action against plaintiff, and hence the compromise note taken in settlement was without consideration and void. This is manifest error. “A husband has the right to sue, for damages, all persons who seek to entice her away with malice or improper motives.” Schouler's Domestic Relations, p. 57, and cases cited. Also, for the ““loss of the wife's affections.” Cooley on Torts, 224; Hoard v. Peck, 56 Barb. 202; Heermance v. James, 47 Barb. 120. The latter case is right in point. There was no crim. con. and no enticing away. Neither does it follow that if defendant had no right of action the note is without a sufficient consideration. The controversy between the parties was a sufficient consideration to support the promise. “The prevention of litigation is not only a sufficient but a highly favored consideration.” 1 Parsons on Cont., (6 Ed.) § 4, p. 438; O'Keeson v. Barclay,2 Pa. (Penrose & Watts) 531. This last case was a suit on a note given in settlement of a slander suit, in which the petition stated no cause of action whatever, but the note was held valid. And bonds issued under an unconstitutional statute are void, but bonds issued in payment thereof, made under a valid statute, are good. Admit, for argument's sake, that plaintiff's defense to defendant's demand for damages was ever so good, yet if he compromised and settled with defendant with a full knowledge of all the facts, in the absence of any fraud, then he is bound by the settlement. Draper v. Ordsley, 15 Mo. 613; Livingston v. Dugan, 20 Mo. 102; Adams v. Sage, 28 N. Y. 103; Stover v. Mitchell, 45 Ill. 214; Steel v. White, 2 Paige's Ch. 478.

MARTIN, C.

On the 26th day of January, 1880, the plaintiff filed a complaint in equity against the defendant. In this complaint another party was originally included as a defendant, but was discharged before trial. The object of the suit was to enjoin the transfer and collection of a certain promissory note in the sum of $550 made by the plaintiff, to enforce its surrender and cancellation, and obtain a judgment for a part payment indorsed upon it. It is alleged in the petition that the note was without consideration, and was obtained by false representations, by threats of suit, and of personal violence. The defendant in his answer denied the allegations of the petition and recited the facts constituting the consideration of the note, which in his own language read as follows:

“Defendant, further answering, says: That on or about the 11th day of November, 1879, he learned for the first time that plaintiff, for a long time thereto, to-wit, for about eighteen months, then last past, had been making love to his (defendant's) wife, whenever and wherever he could meet her. That he had plied every art and used every device in his power to win her love and esteem, and to alienate and estrange her from her husband. That he had told her at divers times and places, that he loved her deeply, devotedly, madly, and that he could not live without her. That plaintiff had written her love-letters on divers occasions; had given her a fine gold finger-ring, and desired to leave and abandon his own wife and children, and take defendant's wife and go to a new country where they would not be known, and could marry and live together as man and wife. That plaintiff was rich and would maintain her in luxury and ease, and she could live like a lady without labor and toil. Defendant, further answering, states that plaintiff, by his persistent efforts, finally succeeded in alienating and estranging the love and affections of defendant's wife from defendant, and procured in the manner and by the means aforesaid, her consent to leave and desert her husband and elope with plaintiff.”

The answer goes on to recite that she had relented her rash promise to elope with plaintiff, had confessed everything to her husband, and begged to remain with him as his wife under the security of pardon and forgiveness. It is further alleged in substance that the defendant, smarting under the wrongs inflicted upon him by plaintiff, repaired to the plaintiff's residence with his attorney, with a view of settling for these wrongs without suit; that in the interview the plaintiff...