TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Edler v. MacAlpine-Downie

Edler v. MacAlpine-Downie, 180 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 16, 1950
Docket
No. 9803_1
Judges
Edgerton, Clark, Miller
Citations
180 F.2d 38586 U.S. App. D.C. 97

Opinion — Miller

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge.

This suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by James Edler, Jr., an infant, by his mother as next friend, against Nora MacAlpine-Downie alleging that the appellee wrongfully enticed the appellant’s father from his home and induced him to desert the appellant and his mother. The appellant sought from her the sum of $50,000 as damages for being deprived of the family life to which he was naturally entitled.

After preliminary procedure, which is unimportant here, the District Court, on motion of the appellee, dismissed the complaint as failing to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The infant appeals, acting through a guardian ad litem who was appointed by the court to supplant the next friend in the conduct of the litigation.

In McMillan v. Taylor, 1946, 81 U.S. App.D.C. 322, 160 F.2d 221 , we held that an action such as this is not recognized in the law. Counsel for the appellant suggest the McMillan case was inadequately briefed in this court, and that we were not afforded adequate assistance in examining the legal question involved. They say we should have followed Daily v. Parker, 1945, 152 F.2d 174, 177 , 162 A.L.R. 819 , in which the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held “ * * * that a child today has a right enforceable in a court of law, against one who has invaded and taken from said child the support and maintenance of its father, as well as damages for the destruction of other rights which arise out of the family relationship and which have been destroyed or defeated by a wrongdoing third party.”

The appellant is mistaken in supposing McMillan v. Taylor was not expressive of our considered opinion. His able and exhaustive brief does not persuade us to follow the doctrine of Daily v. Parker. We therefore adhere to our ruling in the McMillan case and hold that, in the absence of legislation expressly authorizing it, an action of this sort cannot be maintained in the District of Columbia.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1952: 11955: 11958: 11971: 11973: 11981: 11984: 11985: 11988: 119522026peak 1952 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hankins ex rel. Hankins v. Derby211 N.W.2d 581 (Iowa 1973)
  2. Scruggs v. Meredith134 F. Supp. 868 (D. Haw. 1955)
  3. Pleasant v. Washington Sand & Gravel Co.262 F.2d 471 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
  4. Bennight v. Western Auto Supply Co.670 S.W.2d 373 (Tex. App. 1984)
  5. Hill v. Sibley Memorial Hospital108 F. Supp. 739 (D.D.C. 1952)
  6. Wallace v. Wallace184 S.E.2d 327 (W. Va. 1971)

Most recent

  1. Jones v. Lifespring, Inc.713 F. Supp. 426 (D.D.C. 1988)
  2. Zarrella v. Robinson492 A.2d 833 (R.I. 1985)
  3. Bennight v. Western Auto Supply Co.670 S.W.2d 373 (Tex. App. 1984)
  4. Hale ex rel. Hale v. Buckner615 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)
  5. Hankins ex rel. Hankins v. Derby211 N.W.2d 581 (Iowa 1973)
  6. Wallace v. Wallace184 S.E.2d 327 (W. Va. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Daily v. Parker, 152 F.2d 174 (7th Cir. 1945) 57
McMillan v. Taylor, 160 F.2d 221 (D.C. Cir. 1946) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list