Sullivan v. Valiquette
Decision Date | 07 April 1919 |
Docket Number | 9350. |
Citation | 66 Colo. 170,180 P. 91 |
Parties | SULLIVAN v. VALIQUETTE. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; John A. Perry Judge.
Action by Joseph E. Valiquette against Daniel J. Sullivan. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
H. W Spangler, F. T. Johnson, and S. H. Johnson, all of Denver for plaintiff in error.
Mel Emerson Peters, of Wichita Falls, Tex., and Charles Clyde Barker, of Denver, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff (defendant in error) filed a complaint alleging:
First. That he was the husband of one Jessie Valiquette.
Second. That about August, 1915, while the plaintiff was living with his wife in Denver, 'the defendant wrongfully contriving to injure the plaintiff and to deprive him of the company society, and assistance of his said wife, while knowing the said Jessie Valiquette to be the wife of the plaintiff, unlawfully, wickedly, and maliciously gained the affections of the said Jessie Valiquette and enticed her to have carnal intercourse with him and sought to persuade her and entice her by offers of money and otherwise to leave the plaintiff.
The defendant answered at great and unnecessary length, denying most of the material facts alleged in the complaint, and pleading that his relations with the plaintiff's wife were consented to by the plaintiff. The verdict was for the plaintiff for $3,000. The jury specially found that defendant alienated the wife's affection.
1. During the trial the court determined that the complaint stated two causes of action, one for criminal conversation and one for alienation of affection, and instructed the jury accordingly. This was done against the objections of the defendant and is assigned for error. Omitting the parts of the complaint which we have italicized, it follows closely in words and exactly in substance the common-law form of declaration in action on the case for criminal conversation (2 Chitty, Pl. pp. 642, 643) and is commendable for conciseness and clearness. The italicized words are in substance the same as those used in the common-law form for enticing away the servant, apprentice, or wife of the plaintiff (2 Chitty, 642, note d, and 645, note i), and are essential to such action and not to the action for criminal conversation.
P...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nelson v. Jacobsen
...for alienation of affections was obtained by a wife. See Leicester v. Hoadley, 66 Kan. 172, 71 P. 318 (1903). In Sullivan v. Valiquette, 66 Colo. 170, 180 P. 91 (1919), the Colorado Supreme Court recognized "the right of the plaintiff to the body of his wife, and ... to her mind, unpolluted......
-
Destefano v. Grabrian
...of the claim, appear to agree with this definition. See, e.g., Bradbury v. Brooks, 82 Colo. 133, 257 P. 359 (1927); Sullivan v. Valiquette, 66 Colo. 170, 180 P. 91 (1919); Stark v. Johnson, 43 Colo. 243, 95 P. 930 (1908).8 Grabrian and the diocese take issue with characterizing Grabrian as ......
-
Cannon v. Miller, 833SC908
...in this case; one is the right of the plaintiff to the body of his wife, and the other to her mind, unpolluted." Sullivan v. Valiquette, 66 Colo. 170, 172, 180 P. 91, 91 (1919). Most states, including North Carolina, acted to equalize the legal status of wives with the passage of Married Wo......
-
Coulter v. Coulter
... ... elements of, or aggrevations of, the damage he sustained for ... such abuse and perversion. Sullivan v. Valiquette, 66 Colo ... 170, 180 P. 91 ... The ... judgment, in so far as it sustained the demurrer to the first ... cause of ... ...