Walter v. Wilson, 45444
| Decision Date | 27 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45444,45444 |
| Citation | 228 So.2d 597 |
| Parties | William Stephen WALTER v. Robert A. WILSON. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Johnston & Johnston, Biloxi, Wallard L. Richardson, Pascagolua, for appellant.
Lyle M, Page, Biloxi, Arvis V. Cumbest, Pascagoula, for appellee.
The appellant, William Stephen Walter, sued the appellee, Robert A. Wilson, for interfering with his domestic relations with his wife. The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Mississippi. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was guilty of criminal conversation and adultery with plaintiff's wife, and that he had alienated her affection from the plaintiff. The trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of One Dollar ($1.00).
The plaintiff's motion for a new trial was overruled and the plaintiff, appellant here, has appealed to this Court. The appellant contends that the verdict of the jury was so inadequate so as to the evince bias and prejudice on the part of the jury; that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to permit the jury to consider punitive damages on the issue of criminal conversation.
The record in this case shows that the appellee, Robert A. Wilson, was guilty of adultery with appellant's wife. Under the common law a husband is entitled to the services and companionship and consortium of his wife. When he is wrongfully deprived of these rights, he is entitled to a cause of action against one who has interfered with his domestic relations. 42 C.J.S. Husband and Wife § 698 (1944).
Because of the nature of the offense of criminal conversation, punitive or exemplary damages are recoverable. Brister v. Dunaway, 149 Miss. 5, 115 So. 36 (1972); 42 C.J.S. Husband and Wife § 706d (1944); Prettyman v. Williamson, 1 Pennewill, Del., 224, 39 A. 731 (1898); Johnston v. Disbrow, 47 Mich. 59, 10 N.W. 79 (1881); Mills v. Taylor, 85 Mo.App 111 (1900); Johnston v. Allen, 100 N.C. 131, 5 S.E. 66 (1888); Matheis v. Mazet, 164 Pa. 580, 30 A. 434 (1894); Cornelius v. Hambay, 150 Pa. 359, 24 A. 515 (1892).
In the instant case the plaintiff based his action on two grounds, namely (1) criminal conversation and (2) alienation of affection. The modern trend of authority in the case of alienation of affection is that before the trial judge warranted and submitted to the jury the question of punitive damages on account of alienation of affection, as distinguished from criminal coversation, the testimony must show that the acts of the defendant in alienating the affection of the spouse were done with malice or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giltner v. Stark
...in alienating the affection of the spouse were done with malice or that there were circumstances of aggravation. See Walter v. Wilson, 228 So.2d 597, 598 (Miss.1969). There is substantial competent evidence in the record relating to defendant's conduct which would support a finding such con......
-
Fitch v. Valentine, 2005-CA-01800-SCT.
...he [she] has a cause of action `against one who has interfered with his [her] domestic relations.'" Id. at 727 (citing Walter v. Wilson, 228 So.2d 597, 598 (Miss.1969), overruled in part on other grounds; Saunders v. Alford, 607 So.2d 1214, 1219 (Miss. 1992)). Without question, Mississippi'......
-
Bland v. Hill
...adultery is to obtain a punitive damage instruction. This Court has held that in cases of adultery malice is presumed. Walter v. Wilson, 228 So.2d 597, 598 (Miss., 1969). Buddy cites to Walter, but in Walter the plaintiff was suing for alienation of affections and criminal conversation. Cri......
-
Saunders v. Alford, 89-CA-185
...Court enumerated that [b]oth alienation of affection and criminal conversation are recognized as torts in Mississippi. Walter v. Wilson, 228 So.2d 597 (Miss.1969). That case held that where a husband is wrongfully deprived of his rights to the "services and companionship and consortium of h......