Taylor v. Daniel

• Decision Date: 10 January 1907
• Citation: 98 S.W. 986
• Parties: TAYLOR v. DANIEL.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

98 S.W. 986

TAYLOR v. DANIEL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 10, 1907

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bell County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Suit by Matilda Taylor against White Daniel. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Logan & Jeffries, for appellant.

J. L. Reeder, for appellee.

LASSING, J.

Matilda Taylor filed her suit in the Bell circuit court against White Daniel seeking to recover damages for the seduction of her illegitimate daughter, Annie Belle Howard. A demurrer was filed to the petition and sustained, and an amended petition filed, and, a demurrer being sustained to the petition as amended, and plaintiff declining to plead further, her petition was dismissed, with judgment for costs, and she appeals.

The petition as amended fails to state that the daughter, Annie Belle Howard, was, at the date of the acts complained of, under 21 years of age, or that she was in the service of her mother, Matilda Taylor. In the case of Woodward v. Anderson, 9 Bush, 624, this court said: "At common law actions for seduction are based solely upon the relation of master and servant, and no one but those entitled to the services of the female could maintain it. The action is usually instituted by the parent, and the allegation and proof of loss of service was, at common law, indispensable to a recovery." Section 2 of the Kentucky Statutes of 1903 has modified the common-law rule to the extent that actions for seduction may now be maintained without any allegation or proof of the loss of service of the female by reason of the wrongful act of the defendant. But, as said in the case of Woodward v. Anderson, supra: "This statute does not give the right of action to any other persons than those who could maintain it at common law." The statute being silent on the question as to who may bring such an action, the common-law rule upon this question is, therefore, in full force, and the relation of master and servant, or parent and child, must still appear in the pleading. This being the case, and the plaintiff in her petition having failed to allege that her daughter was under 21 years of age, or was in her service, or that she was entitled to her service, we are of opinion that the petition failed to state a cause of action for seduction.

The judgment is affirmed.