Weber v. Weber
| Citation | 248 N.W. 642,124 Neb. 878 |
| Decision Date | 19 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 28420.,28420. |
| Parties | WEBER v. WEBER ET AL. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
WEBER
v.
WEBER ET AL.
No. 28420.
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
May 19, 1933.
An instruction which submits to a jury allegations of fact, not supported by the evidence, is erroneous and, if prejudicial to complainant, is ground for reversal.
Appeal from District Court, Boyd County; Dickson, Judge.
Action by Merna Weber against John H. Weber and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Fred S. Berry, of Wayne, and Wills & Wills, of Butte, for appellants.
J. A. Donohoe, of O'Neill, and W. L. Brennan, of Butte, for appellee.
Heard before GOSS, C. J., and DEAN, GOOD, EBERLY, and DAY, JJ.
DEAN, Justice.
Merna Weber brought this action to recover damages from the parents of her divorced husband for the alienation of his affections. The defendants appeal from a judgment rendered against them.
An examination of the evidence discloses that the overt acts, which form plaintiff's complaint against the defendants, were committed solely by Hannah Weber. There is not a scintilla of evidence that John H. Weber, during the time plaintiff and Theodore Weber were husband and wife, either ever said or did anything that interfered with the marriage relationship or contributed in any manner to the unfortunate trouble which led to the filing of two different divorce suits, one
[248 N.W. 643]
of which was in Nevada, where a decree was granted Theodore Weber. The defendants are charged with a conspiracy to alienate their son's affections.
[1][2] The evidence upon which the plaintiff relies to support her charge of conspiracy against defendant John H. Weber may be summarized as follows: He stood mute and tacitly gave his approval to the conversations of Hannah Weber, his wife, with their son about plaintiff. If the testimony of plaintiff as to the various charges made about her by Hannah Weber are true, in manner and form, then there was scarcely an opportunity for John H. Weber to have spoken. His silence was wise. He is charged with being present and participating in a quarrel about the cattle, which caused the first separation, when plaintiff's testimony is that when “we were coming home I saw the Weber car leave our yard.” He advanced his son money for various purposes, including expenses for a divorce suit, and afterwards sought to help his son get the custody of the baby. But the record is devoid of evidence tending to prove that John H. Weber, directly or indirectly...
To continue reading
Request your trial