Weiher v. Meyersahm

• Decision Date: 13 June 1883
• Citation: 50 Mich. 602,16 N.W. 160
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WEIHER v. MEYERSAHM.

16 N.W. 160

50 Mich. 602

WEIHER v. MEYERSAHM.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 13, 1883

Comp.Laws �� 6195-7, are enabling, and not restrictive, in giving the right to sue for seduction to representatives of the injured woman; and they do not deprive her of her right as it existed at the common law, or otherwise, to sue in her own name and for her own benefit.

Error to superior court of Detroit.

Otto Kirchner, for plaintiff.

Henry G. Holmes, for defendant and appellant.

GRAVES C.J.

The plaintiff alleged in substance as her cause of action that under a fraudulent promise of marriage by the defendant, upon which she relied as being in good faith, but which was in fact made with intent to corrupt her chastity, and entice her to America, and away from her home and friends in Germany, he succeeded in his purpose and caused her to bear two children by him, and subsequently renounced her and refused to take her in marriage. She recovered damages and he alleged error. It is questionable whether the record fairly raises any point whatever, or at least any which is not plainly frivolous. But, if otherwise, it is only this: that the plaintiff was not competent to sue on the cause of action stated in the declaration. The suit, we are told, is not on contract--is not for a violation of a promise of marriage with circumstances of aggravation, but upon a tort--on an imputed fraud and deception by which the plaintiff was ensnared and injured; and then it is said she was not entitled to sue in her own name for such an injury. The statute, we are informed, does not authorize an action by the seduced female, and sections 6195, 6196, 6197, Comp.Laws, are cited.

The nature of the action is correctly stated, but the consequence is not well drawn. The statutory provisions, so far as they go, are enabling provisions and not disabling or restrictive regulations. The purpose of the legislature was to extend the bounds of remedial justice in this class of cases, and confer a title to sue on particular representatives of the injured woman. A ground of action on her own account was fully recognized; and having provided that when of full age she might appoint a relative to sue, and hence implying that the suit would be for her right and in her behalf, it would be very unreasonable to impute to the legislature a contrary idea, and suppose that they regarded the cause of action as one which would belong to another. The...