Schultz v. Schultz
| Decision Date | 21 September 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 36219.,36219. |
| Citation | 203 Iowa 910,210 N.W. 94 |
| Parties | SCHULTZ v. SCHULTZ. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Crawford County; E. G. Albert, Judge.
Action at law for seduction, alleged to have been accomplished in September, 1919. The answer was a general denial. The defendant, as a witness, also denied all illicit relations with the plaintiff. There was a verdict for the plaintiff for $10,000, and judgment was entered thereon. The defendant appeals. Reversed.Conner & Powers, of Denison, for appellant.
P. W. Harding, of Denison, for appellee.
The parties hereto bear the same family name, but they are in no degree related. The plaintiff charges the defendant with having sustained illicit relations with her on September 3, 1919, and as having induced her submission thereto by promise of marriage, The plaintiff was at that time an unmarried woman 19 years of age. The defendant was a boy 17 years of age. The parties had never met prior to the date in question. Their acquaintance had been made only a few hours before the time of the alleged seduction. The occasion of their meeting was a public dance held in the town of Schleswig, as a part of the festivities attending a home-coming celebration, during September 3 and September 4. The plaintiff lived with her parents on a farm a few miles from Schleswig. The defendant likewise lived with his parents on a farm a few miles from the same town. The two farm homes were five or six miles distant from each other. The defendant came to town that day with an older brother, Otto. That evening both boys attended the dance. This was the first dance which the defendant had ever attended. Some time prior to this date, Otto had become acquainted with Nellie Schultz, an older sister of the plaintiff. He met her at this dance. She introduced the defendant to the plaintiff. This was at 7 o'clock in the evening. Some hours were spent at the dance in participation therein. At about 12 o'clock Otto asked the privilege of taking Nellie home. She suggested that the defendant accompany Mamie (the plaintiff), and such was the arrangement made. Otto and Alfred (defendant) had two young friends, who were to go home with them for the night (Kuhlman and Buck). So this party of six entered the automobile of Otto and all went together to the home of the plaintiff, arriving there at about 12 o'clock or very shortly thereafter. Otto and Nellie occupied the front seat; plaintiff and defendant occupied the back seat; and Kuhlman and Buck occupied the “jump seats” betwixt the two couples. Arriving at the home of the plaintiff, the two couples alighted from the automobile; Otto and Nellie went to the house, and plaintiff and defendant occupied a hammock hanging in the yard. The two young friends remained in the automobile 30 feet distant from the hammock awaiting the return of the other men. The alleged seduction occurred,as claimed, in the hammock at about 1 o'clock. It further appears that the same couples met on the following evening at the same place at the dance, and came together in the same automobile to the home of the plaintiff, and that the illicit relations between plaintiff and defendant were repeated that night. The plaintiff's case rests upon her own testimony. Such testimony is very self-contradictory, and much of it approaches the incredible. Plaintiff's petition alleged previous chaste character. The jury rendered a special affirmative finding on that question. The verdict rendered is necessarily predicated thereon. Our examination of the record brings us to the conclusion that this special finding was contrary to the evidence and contrary to the instructions of the court....
To continue reading
Request your trial