Walsh v. Wolff

• Decision Date: 06 January 1949
• Docket Number: 30683.
• Citation: 32 Wn.2d 285,201 P.2d 215
• Parties: WALSH v. WOLFF.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

201 P.2d 215

32 Wn.2d 285

WALSH v. WOLFF.

No. 30683.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 6, 1949

Department 2

Action for alienation of affections by Eric Walsh against Peter Wolff.From the judgment, defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Robert M. Jones, judge.

Henry J. Gorin, of Seattle, for appellant.

Monheimer Schermer & Mifflin, of Seattle, for respondent.

SCHWELLENBACH, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding damages against appellant for alienating the affections of respondent's wife.

Eric and Vollie Walsh were married at Juneau, Alaska, November 19 1933.They lived there until 1935, when they moved to Seattle.He was a miner and was away from home, working, a portion of the time.Work was not plentiful, and they endured the hardships that most couples did during that period.On October 23, 1942, he was inducted into the army.After spending about eighteen months in camps in this country, he was shipped overseas to British West Africa.

They wrote to each other about once a week.The letters passing between them were friendly and loving and reflected the feelings of any normal couple who were separated because of the war.There was nothing in the wife's letters to indicate that she did not continue to love him or that she was not anxious for him to return home to her.

After peace was declared, and on September 5, 1945, just two days Before he was to sail for home, he received a letter from her, stating that she no longer loved him, and wanted a divorce.

Upon his return he stayed for a while with her mother.He then learned that during the time he had been away, she had become acquainted with the defendant while they were both working for the Liquor Board.She had gone out with Wolff, had been entertained at his house, and had stayed there at one time when she was taken sick.Her folks had tried to prevail upon her to cease her associations with the defendant.

The wife commenced action for divorce, and, upon a hearing thereon, the divorce was denied.The plaintiff then started this action, alleging that the defendant, through wile and blandishments, enticed his wife and influenced her improperly to transfer her affections to him; that, as a result, he was required to defend a divorce action at an expense of $250.00 and that the loss of the love and affection of his wife damaged him in the sum of $15,000.00.The trial court awarded him damages in the sum of $200.00 for defending the divorce action, and $500.00 general damages for loss of affections.This appeal follows.

We shall not detail the facts of this tragic affair, but shall merely state that the trial court was fully justified, from the evidence, in finding that the appellant enticed and improperly influenced the respondent's wife to transfer her affections from the respondent.

By supplemental answer to the complaint, appellant pleaded as follows:

'Defendant states that the Plaintiff is barred and stopped from prosecuting this action further by reason of the fact that the matters and things in controversy in the above entitled action were wholly settled and finally determined by reason of a Judgment entered in cause #366970 entitled Vollie Marguerite Walsh vs. Eric Walsh; said Judgment being signed by the Hon. J. T. Ronald and entered in said cause on the 3rd day of February.'

Appellant assigns as error that the court erred in not sustaining defend...