White v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 09 September 1856
• Citation: 54 Va. 573
• Parties: WHITE v. CAMPBELL.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

54 Va. 573

WHITE v. CAMPBELL.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

September 9, 1856

In an action for the seduction of the plaintiff's daughter, to enhance the damages, he may prove that the defendant promised to marry her, and by means of said promise had succeeded in debauching her.

This was an action instituted by George W. Campbell against John White, for the seduction of the daughter of the plaintiff. On the trial, after the plaintiff had introduced evidence tending to prove that the defendant had debauched his daughter, to enhance the damages, he proposed to prove that the defendant had promised said daughter to marry her, and by means of said promise had succeeded in debauching her. The defendant objected to the admission of this evidence; but the court overruled the objection; and he excepted. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for eight hundred dollars. Whereupon the defendant applied to this court for a supersedeas, which was allowed.

Robert Johnston, for the appellant.

Fry, for the appellee.

MONCURE J. delivered the opinion of the court:

The action brought by a father for the seduction of his daughter is founded on the supposed relation of master and servant and at common law, it was necessary to aver and prove loss of service in order to maintain the action. It was long and well settled, however, that loss of actual service had little to do with the action; and that, in substance, it was an action for damages, not only for the loss of service, but also for all that the plaintiff could feel from the nature of the injury. The jury, in assessing the damages, might consider his loss of the comfort, as well as the service, of the daughter, in whose virtue he could feel no consolation, and his anxiety as the parent of other children whose morals might be corrupted by her example. Greenl. Ev. § 579. The Code, ch. 148, § 1, p. 589, has provided, that " an action for seduction may be maintained without any allegation or proof of the loss of the service of the female by reason of the defendant's wrongful act." The action is now in form as well as substance, an action to recover damages for the wound inflicted by the seducer on the peace and happiness of the injured father. These damages are exemplary and whatever evidence reasonably tends to aggravate the offender's wrong, and show the extent of the father's loss, is legal and proper. Evidence of the means by which the seduction was accomplished is of that character. And upon principle, therefore, it would seem to be very clear, that if the wicked act was accomplished by means of a prior promise of marriage, evidence of such promise would be admissible in aggravation of the damages. That such promise is an independent cause of action by the daughter, is no good reason why it should not be proved in aggravation of damages in the father's action for seduction. His action is ex delicto; her's ex contractu. The evidence is merely collateral to his action, while it is the very foundation of her's. Each has a perfect right to recover damages to...