Soper v. Igo, Walker & Co.

• Decision Date: 29 November 1905
• Citation: 121 Ky. 550,89 S.W. 538
• Parties: SOPER v. IGO, WALKER & CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

89 S.W. 538

121 Ky. 550

SOPER v. IGO, WALKER & CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 29, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Nannie Soper against Igo, Walker & Co. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Grant E. Lilly, for appellant.

J. A Sullivan and J. Tevis Cobb, for appellee.

NUNN J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the lower court sustaining a demurrer to the petition of appellant. The petition is as follows: "The plaintiff says that she is a married woman, and her husband, Chas. Soper, is now living with her and they were married in the year 1880. By this marriage they have several children, one of whom is named Thomas Daniel Soper, hereinafter called 'Dan.' On the 2d day of June, 1903, this infant boy, then aged about 18 years, was induced, persuaded, enticed, helped, aided, and assisted by certain designing persons to leave the home, bed, and board of this plaintiff, all of which was against the knowledge will, and consent of herself and her husband, and the said Dan did, by reason of the said wrongful acts, leave the home, bed, and board of plaintiff, against her will, knowledge, and consent, and against the knowledge, will, or consent of her husband, by reason of which this plaintiff has lost the society and companionship of said infant and has suffered much mental distress and pain therefrom. Her said son has been kept by these defendants since said day in June until the present time against their will and consent, and said defendants and each of them knew that the said Dan had been induced, enticed, persuaded, helped, aided, and assisted away from this plaintiff's home without their knowledge, and against the will and consent of herself and her husband, and, knowing this, the said defendants wrongfully kept and harbored said Dan, in conjunction with C. H. Chenault, and gave him employment, all of which was against plaintiff's and her husband's will and consent, which wrongful harboring and keeping deprived and now deprives this plaintiff of his society and companionship, and from all of which she has suffered much mental distress and pain, and has expended money to recover the possession of her said son, in all to the sum of $5,000, for which she prays judgment, and for all proper relief."

The only question involved on this appeal is whether the mother can maintain an action like this when her husband and the father of her child is alive and resides with...