Scarlett v. Norwood

• Decision Date: 27 November 1894
• Citation: Scarlett v. Norwood, 115 N.C. 284, 20 S.E. 459 (N.C. 1894)
• Parties: SCARLETT et al. v. NORWOOD.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

20 S.E. 459

115 N.C. 284

SCARLETT et al.

v.NORWOOD.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 27, 1894.

Seduction—Action bt Father.

Under Code, § 177, providing that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, a father may bring an action for damages resulting from the seduction of his infant daughter, —the loss of her services, the expenses of her illness, her death, and the consequent injury to his affections.

Appeal from superior court, Orange county; Bynum, Judge.

Action by Thomas Scarlett and others against James Norwood for damages. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

John W. Graham, for appellee.

CLARK, J. This is an action brought by the father, alleging seduction of his infant daughter, loss of her services, expenses of her illness, her death, injury in his affections, etc It is the common law action of seduction, and we know of no statute depriving the father of his remedy in such cases. If an action on such facts can be maintained for wrongful act causing death under the provisions of Code, § 1498, it could be brought only by the personal representative, as is rightly contended by defendant's counsel. But the plaintiff is entitled to any relief to which the facts stated in his complaint if proven, entitle him. Patrick v. Railroad Co., 93 N. C. 422; McNeill v. Hodges, 105 N. C. 52, 11 S. E. 265; Clark's Code (2d Ed.) pp. 150, 151. Here the allegation of death caused by wrongful act of defendant is only a circumstance in aggravation of damages in the action for seduction. Hood v. Sudderth, 111 N. C. 215, 16 S. E. 397, relied on by defendant has no application. That case held that when the woman seduced is of age, there being no loss of services to the father, the only cause of action in such case is the tort, —the fraud and deceit causing injury to her person and good name. It held that the woman herself can in such case maintain the action, being the party injured. But here, the girl being a minor, the father was entitled to her services, it was incumbent upon him to pay the expenses attendant upon her illness, and the jury, upon common law and immemorial precedent, might add punitory damages for the wrong done him in his affections and the destruction of his household. He is the party in interest, and can maintain the ac-tion, under Code, § 177, and, it has been ruled, could have the defendant held in arrest and bail. Hoover v. Palmer, 80 N. C. 315. Whether, when an action for seduction of a minor is brought by the parent another action can be brought by the girl herself for the injury to her person, suing by next friend, as in Smith v. Richards, 29 Conn....