Stricker v. Scott

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: RUGG
• Citation: Stricker v. Scott, 283 Mass. 12, 186 N.E. 45 (Mass. 1933)
• Decision Date: 23 May 1933
• Parties: STRICKER v. SCOTT.

283 Mass. 12

186 N.E. 45

STRICKER

v.SCOTT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

May 23, 1933.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Hampden County; Collins, Judge.

Action by Fred E. Stricker against Florence Snow Scott with trustee procees. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

C. R. Clason and G. J. Callahan, both of Springfield, for plaintiff.

H. M. Ehrlich, of Springfield, for defendant.

RUGG, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff seeks in this action of tort to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by him by reason of alienation of his wife's affections and for loss of consortium. The writ was sued out in January, 1929. The exceptions present a very narrow point. Testimony was admitted without exception to the effect that early in 1927 the wife of the plaintiff brought against him a petition in the probate court for separate support, that there was a hearing on that petition at which both the plaintiff and his wife testified, and that the wife lost her case. There was offered in evidence a certified copy of the decree upon that petition containing this: ‘it appearing to the Court that said petitioner is not for justifiable cause actually living apart from her said husband: It is ordered that said petition be dismissed.’ This copy was offered and excluded by the trial judge at least twice during the trial (which occupied eight court days) but finally was admitted subject to the exception of the defendant. Two days later, at the close of the evidence but before arguments of counsel, the trial judge of his own motion addressed the jury stating that he admitted it under a mistaken view of the evidence, and proceeding in these words: ‘I am going to withdraw that exhibit from this case; and I ask you, not academically, but positively, to consider that exhibit withdrawn, and not to consider it in any way in your deliberations on this case, being of the opinion as the evidence now stands it has no probative value.’ The single exception is to the admission of the copy of the decree. The copy was not competent evidence and ought not to have been admitted. It was the final disposition of a litigation to which the defendant was not a party. It was not a proceeding in rem which bound everybody whether a party to it or not. It had no bearing upon the state of mind of the plaintiff's wife toward him. It simply showed the decision of the judge. The outcome of the proceedings in that petition had no relevancy to the present action. The plaintiff is not aided by anything decided in Claffey v. Fenelon, 263 Mass. 427, 431, 432, 161 N. E. 616. That case arose respecting the trial of an issue as to the soundness of mind of an alleged testator, where considerable latitude is allowed, and the evidence as to a court record was admitted without exception. It was not pertinent to show bias on the part of the plaintiff's wife as a witness. The fact of the litigation was all that was permissible in this particular, and that was in evidence without exception. Evidence as to the nature of the relations between the husband and wife was competent. Sherry v. Moore, 258 Mass. 420, 423, 155 N. E. 441. The facts of the petition and of the trial were in evidence. The decree itself did not bear upon the conjugal attitude of each to the other. The case is controlled by Barney v. Tourtellotte, 138 Mass. 106, where it was held, in an action to recover for the board of the defendant's wife and child, that a decree of the probate court that the wife was living apart from the husband for justifiable cause was not admissible. There is nothing in Gibson v. Soper, 6 Gray, 279, 66 Am. Dec. 414;Brown v. Brown, 209 Mass. 388, 394, 395, 95 N. E. 796;Giedrewicz v. Donovan, 277 Mass. 563, 179...