Rockwell v. Rockwell
| Decision Date | 20 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | 27,924 |
| Citation | 231 N.W. 718,181 Minn. 13 |
| Parties | MATTIE ROCKWELL v. CHARLOTTE ROCKWELL |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Mower county to recover damages for alienation of the affections of plaintiff's husband. There was a verdict of $2,000 in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appealed from an order, Peterson, J. denying her alternative motion for judgment or a new trial. Affirmed.
Alienation of affections.
In this action, in which plaintiff sought to recover damages from the mother and sister of her husband because of the alienation by them of his affections for her, it is held:
Evidence sustained verdict for plaintiff.
1. The evidence warranted the jury in believing that there was such actionable alienation.
Verdict not excessive.
2. The verdict for $2,000 was not excessive.
Letters between husband and wife properly admitted.
3. Numerous letters passing between plaintiff and her husband were received in evidence without objection. Under objection to admission of other such letters, it was stated that the purpose was to show the affectionate relationship existing between plaintiff and her husband. The ruling was reserved. After the husband had testified for the defense and recited conversations had between plaintiff and himself, the letters were properly received in evidence.
Deed of trust by husband's mother properly admitted.
4. The mother of the husband died shortly before the trial. A trust deed made by her while the alienation was in progress or after it had been accomplished was offered by plaintiff and admitted over objection. It was strongly evidentiary as to the purposes and motives of defendants and was likely one of the means adopted to carry them out. There was no error.
Defendants were joint tortfeasors.
5. The mother and sister acted jointly; they were joint tortfeasors. The acts of one were binding on the other.
Wright Nelson & Plunkett, for appellant.
Sasse French & Dunnette, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from an order denying her alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
This is an action to recover damages for the alienation by defendants of the affections of plaintiff's husband. Plaintiff had a verdict for $2,000.
Defendant contends that the verdict was not justified by the evidence; that it was excessive and given under the influence of passion and prejudice; that improper conduct of plaintiff's counsel prevented a fair and impartial trial; that there were errors in the admission of evidence duly excepted to and specified as such in the motion for a new trial. (No requests were made for instructions to the jury, and but one exception, not important to the decision here, was taken to the charge given.)
Plaintiff, after an acquaintance of 15 years with Ernest Rockwell and a five-year engagement, was married to him in 1925. She was 34 years of age and her husband 49. Ernest is a brother of defendant Charlotte. The action was originally brought against Ernest's mother and Charlotte. The former died before the trial; it proceeded against Charlotte alone.
1. The dispute in the evidence is upon the question of defendant's responsibility for the separation of plaintiff and her husband and for the alienation of his affections for plaintiff. The evidence is conflicting. Defendant's counsel, by a rather full recital of the evidence in his client's favor and by assuming it to be true and that of the plaintiff false, claims that the verdict was not justified by the evidence. This is not a proper position to take. Without doubt counsel made the most of his client's case and ably presented it to the jury. It was for that body to consider his argument on the facts and not for this court. It is sufficient to say that the jury was warranted in concluding that from the time of the marriage a systematic attempt was made by Charlotte and her mother to alienate the affection of plaintiff's husband for her. This attempt was highly successful. The verdict of the jury had the approval of the trial court; it must stand in the absence of errors occurring at the trial. There is abundant evidence reasonably tending to support it. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 415. It is not necessary for us to review and discuss the evidence to demonstrate the correctness of the verdict. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 415a.
2. We do not consider the verdict in this case excessive. The court correctly charged the jury relative to the law of the case and as to exemplary or punitive damages. It stated that if Charlotte not only alienated the affections of plaintiff's husband, but did so wilfully and maliciously and in wanton disregard of the rights of plaintiff, then the jury had the right to include in the verdict punitive damages as well as damages for her compensation. The charge in this regard was not excepted to. It is of course not known whether the jury allowed punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. In either event, under the facts as disclosed, the verdict is not excessive.
We have given careful attention to the claimed improper conduct on the part of plaintiff's counsel. We do not find support for that contention. The case was fairly and impartially tried; the rights of both parties were properly protected.
3. While plaintiff's evidence was being introduced, numerous letters that had passed between plaintiff and her husband were properly identified and received in evidence without objection. Later one letter offered was objected to and the suggestion made that, being a letter passing between a husband and wife, a privileged communication between them, it was not binding on defendant. This was the only time the privilege question was raised. It was not the theory upon which the defendant based her numerous objections to the admission of letters. Even if of any force, it is not available here. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 405. The offerings were then made for the purpose of showing the state of affection between the husband and wife and not as evidence as to any fact question appearing therein. The court reserved its ruling. Later the proffered letters...
To continue reading
Request your trial