Townsend v. Holderby

• Decision Date: 16 October 1929
• Docket Number: 181.
• Citation: 149 S.E. 855,197 N.C. 550
• Parties: TOWNSEND v. HOLDERBY et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

149 S.E. 855

197 N.C. 550

TOWNSEND v. HOLDERBY et al.

No. 181.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 16, 1929

Appeal from Superior Court, Pitt County; Lyon, Emergency Judge.

Action by Mrs. C. R. Townsend against J. C. Holderby and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

Evidence in action for alienation of affections held insufficient to establish that defendants caused separation or continuance thereof.

Action to recover damages caused by the wrongful and malicious alienation of the affections of plaintiff's husband resulting in his abandonment of her.

It is admitted that plaintiff and her husband are now living separate and apart from each other, and that they have so lived since 1924; defendants deny, however, that they or either of them caused such separation, or that they have prevented the return of plaintiff's husband to her.

It is admitted that when plaintiff's husband left his home in July, 1924, he had a delusion, which was wholly without justification in fact, with respect to plaintiff's fidelity to him, and that said delusion was due to the unfortunate mental condition of said husband. The evidence tended to show that said delusion has persisted notwithstanding the assurances of friends and relatives that it was groundless.

Plaintiff and her husband were married in 1915. They lived together happily until the summer of 1924. During this time three children were born. Plaintiff's husband was successful in business, and all the evidence was to the effect that he maintained a comfortable home for his wife and children being at all times an affectionate husband and a devoted father. In the summer of 1924, he suffered a breakdown in his health, both physical and mental; upon the advice of plaintiff and her relatives, he left his home in this state on July 2, 1924, and went to Richmond, Va., where he entered a sanatorium for treatment. There was no evidence tending to show that defendants or either of them advised with or counseled plaintiff's husband with respect to his health or with respect to his leaving his home. Plaintiff testified that she urged her husband, after consultation with her father, to go to the sanatorium for treatment. She also testified that: "The first estrangement that arose between me and my husband was for some reason other than conduct on the part of the Holderbys. I think the cause of the first estrangement between myself and my husband was due to financial reasons, or business transactions, in which neither of the Holderbys had anything whatever to do, that I know of. He never alluded to my being untrue to him until just before he went to the hospital. He accused me of infidelity after the birth of my baby." She further testified: "I think all of the unfortunate occurrences related by me were due to the mental condition of my husband."

While plaintiff's husband was in the sanatorium at Richmond, he communicated with defendants, J. C. Holderby, his stepfather and Murrill Holderby, his brother. At his request, one or both of them went to Richmond to see him. He returned to this state with them, and entered a hospital at Wilson, where the defendants then resided. He remained in this hospital for several weeks; while he was there defendants visited him frequently. When he left the hospital, he went to the home of defendants, Murrill Holderby and his wife, Lillie Holderby. He remained in their home for some time and then went to a hospital at Battle Creek, Mich. Since leaving that hospital he has traveled widely throughout the United States, sometimes on business and sometimes visiting relatives. He now lives at Valdosta, Ga., where he makes his home with defendants Murrill Holderby and Lillie Holderby. The defendant J. C. Holderby now lives at Mullins, S. C. Plaintiff's husband has not lived with her since July, 1924. Plaintiff testified: "I think the beginning of the estrangement between my husband and myself was due to his mental condition. I think the defendants are the cause of his staying away. I do not think they caused his mental condition, but they are the cause of his not keeping well." There was no evidence tending to show any conduct on the part of the defendants, or of either of them, which supports plaintiff's opinion that defendants have prevented the return of her husband to her, unless it be evidence to the effect that they have associated with him and permitted him to live in their home.

After plaintiff's husband left her in the summer of 1924, and after she had been informed that he justified his conduct toward her by charging that she had been unfaithful to him she caused a warrant to be issued for his arrest on the charge that he had slandered her; he has not been arrested on this warrant. Upon learning of the issuance of the warrant, he left the state and has since remained out of the state for the purpose of avoiding arrest. Plaintiff...