Welty v. Sparks
| Decision Date | 19 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 31410.,31410. |
| Parties | WELTY v. SPARKS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Fayette County; A. N. Hobson, Judge.
Action at law to recover damages. The alleged cause of action is stated in two counts: First, that defendant wrongfully alienated the affections of plaintiff's wife; and, second, that defendant seduced and debauched plaintiff's wife. On trial in the district court the jury found for the plaintiff on the first count or charge only, and assessed his recovery at $1,000. From the judgment entered on this verdict, the defendant appeals. Reversed.Sager, Sweet & Edwards, of Waterloo, and W. J. Ainsworth, of West Union, for appellant.
C. B. Hughes, of Bloomington, Ill., and W. B. Ingersoll, of Oelwein, for appellee.
The principal point made for a reversal of the judgment below is that the record is without sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury. As above stated the charge made by the plaintiff as a basis for recovery was twofold: First, alienation of the wife's affections; and, second, criminal conversation with the wife. In support of the second count the plaintiff and another witness called by him testified that on one occasion they together saw the defendant and plaintiff's wife in the act of adultery. While this testimony is characterized by some features of marked improbability, yet, had the jury believed it and found in plaintiff's favor on that issue, the finding could not have been said to be without support in the evidence. But the jury did not so find. In other words, the plaintiff did not make good his charge of criminal conversation, and if his recovery of damages is to be sustained at all it must be on the theory that the evidence shows some wrongful act or conduct on the part of defendant by which he induced or led the plaintiff's wife to withdraw her affections from her husband.
[1] It is not enough to show or prove that the wife did in fact become alienated from her husband, nor would it be enough to show that she became infatuated with or transferred her affections to the defendant; but before the latter can be held liable for damages it must further appear by a preponderance of the evidence that he willfully, wrongfully, or intentionally induced such alienation. Bailey v. Kennedy, 148 Iowa, 720, 126 N. W. 181. And such indeed is the law as laid down by the trial court in its charge to the jury. Bringing the record to the test of this rule we are constrained to hold that the objection made by the appellant to the sufficiency of the evidence is well taken, and that the verdict returned thereon cannot be permitted to stand. We shall not attempt to rehearse the testimony.
[2] It is sufficient to say that if we exclude from our consideration the evidence offered by plaintiff of an alleged act of adultery between his wife and defendant--an issue of fact on which the jury found against him--there is no competent evidence whatever of any act or word of the defendant having any fair tendency to show a purpose on his part to alienate the affections of the wife from her husband. The defendant is a practicing physician, and became acquainted with Mrs. Welty through a professional call to attend her in confinement. The evidence further tends to show that thereafter and during a period of several months she called at defendant's office on various occasions, and that he called at her home two or three times. Except as to the last of these calls (the occasion of the alleged act of adultery, concerning which plaintiff failed to convince the jury) no witness for the plaintiff claims to have been present, or to have the slightest knowledge of what occurred, or of what was said or done at such interviews. The defendant and Mrs. Welty unite in testifying that each and all of these meetings at the defendant's office and at her home were for the sole purpose of obtaining professional advice and treatment either for Mrs. Welty herself, or for her children. There is no evidence of any meeting between these persons at any other time or place, nor of any other communication or correspondence passing between them. No one claims to have observed any manifestations of affection or of unbecoming familiarity between them. Excepting the one alleged incident above mentioned, the evidence of which we think must be disregarded on this appeal, plaintiff and his counsel place their reliance on his testimony that about the time she began consulting with the defendant or soon thereafter she manifested a...
To continue reading
Request your trial