White v. Thomson
| Decision Date | 04 April 1949 |
| Citation | 324 Mass. 140,85 N.E.2d 246 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | WARREN E. WHITE & others v. MARIAN THOMSON & others. |
February 11, 1949.
Present: QUA, C.
J., LUMMUS, RONAN WILKINS, & SPALDING, JJ.
Equity Jurisdiction, Husband and wife, Parent and child, Personal rights, Other remedy. Husband and Wife. Parent and Child. Alienation of Affections.
Neither the wife nor the dependent children of a man can maintain a suit in equity for injunctive relief against a woman who has enticed him to leave them and their home and to deprive the wife of the companionship and consortium of her husband, and the children of his care and society.
Adequate statutory remedies exist for the relief of a wife and minor children respecting conduct of the husband and father in squandering his substance and failing to support them due to the enticement of another woman.
BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court with a writ of summons and attachment dated May 16, 1947.
The averments of the bill are described in the opinion. The prayers were in substance that the defendant Marian Thomson be enjoined "from in any way interfering with the relationship of the plaintiffs, and any of them, and the defendant Earl R White"; "from continuing her relationship with and attentions to the defendant Earl R. White"; "from managing, taking charge of, or expending funds, property or assets of the defendant Earl R. White or in any way affecting the same"; and "from receiving in any form or manner, directly or indirectly," "any moneys property, or assets from the defendant Earl R. White"; that the defendant Earl R. White be "enjoined from disposing of or wasting, squandering or using any of his property, assets and estate, except for his own personal benefit and for the benefit of the plaintiffs," and "from expending or using any of the same for the direct or indirect benefit of Mrs. Thomson, her agents or servants, her children or parents."
The grounds of the defendants' demurrers were, in substance, want of equity, and that the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy in the Probate Court.
The interlocutory decrees sustaining the demurrers were entered by order of Williams, J., and the final decree dismissing the bill by order of Donahue, J.
E. M. Dangel, (L.
E. Sherry & C.
A. George with him,) for the plaintiffs.
R. L. Lurie, for the defendants Thomson and White.
This case comes here on the appeals of the plaintiffs from an interlocutory decree sustaining the demurrers to the bill of the defendants Marian Thomson and Earl R. White, and from a final decree dismissing the bill.
The bill was filed May 16, 1947. The plaintiffs are the minor son and daughter and the wife, of the defendant Earl R. White, all of Attleboro. The defendants, other than two banks that are not charged with wrongdoing, are said Earl R. White and one Marian Thomson, a married woman living in Attleboro. The bill alleges substantially the following. Prior to July, 1944, the Whites lived together as a happy family. Prior to that time Earl R. White and Marian Thomson had met, and she "contrived, planned, schemed, and determined to break up the plaintiff's happy home and family life," to entice Earl R. White from them, and to deprive the plaintiffs of his affections and consortium. Early in August, 1944, she enticed and procured Earl R. White to leave the plaintiffs, to continue to absent himself from them, to fail to provide for them, to fail or refuse to fulfil his marriage vows and obligations and his paternal duties, and "virtually to live with her." She obtained a divorce from her own husband, and induced Earl R. White to bring a libel for divorce which is still pending. She illegally lived with Earl R. White "as husband and wife, unlawfully held themselves [out] to be such, represented to the public that [she] Mrs. Thomson was Mrs. Earl R. White . . . and . . . pretended to be and impersonated
Mrs. White.
" Mrs. Thomson is insolvent and has no assets.
The law does not attempt to control or limit human affections. It is only where, by alienating the affections of one spouse, the result is adultery or the ceasing of the spouses to live together that the law recognizes that a tort has been committed. Neville v. Gile, 174 Mass. 305 , Houghton v. Rice, 174 Mass. 366 . Webber v. Benbow, 211 Mass. 366 . Longe v. Saunders, 246 Mass. 159 . Sherry v. Moore, 258 Mass. 420 , 423. McGrath v. Sullivan, 303 Mass. 327 , 329. The allegation in the bill that the defendant Thomson induced the defendant Earl R. White "virtually to live with her," is insufficient to show either adultery or deprivation of consortium. Houghton v. Rice, 174 Mass. 366 . The further allegation that "Dr. White and Mrs. Thomson illegally lived as husband and wife," is not, we think, equivalent to the usual allegation that she debauched and carnally knew him, but states merely a conclusion of law from undisclosed facts. But we assume that the allegation that Mrs. Thomson...
To continue reading
Request your trial