TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Paul v. Frazier

Harriet Paul versus Peter Frazier

Paul v. Frazier, 3 Mass. 71 (1807)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1807
Judges
Parsons
Citations
3 Mass. 71
Headnotes
No action lies for a single woman against one for seducing her and getting her with child, under pretence of a design to marry her, no promise of marriage being alleged.
Summary
The declaration was in case for that the defendant at, &c., began to court the plaintiff under a pretence of a design to marry her, and having under that pretence gained her affections, got her with child, and afterwards utterly forsook her; whereby she hath been greatly injured in her reputation, hurt m her peace of mind, &c. To her damage 2000 dollars (1). The defendant pleaded not guilty, and upon issue joined in the Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiff-obtained a verdict for 1000 dollars. Upon the defendant’s motion the court below arrested the judgment, and from that decision the plaintiff appealed to this Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Parsons

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court was, some days after, delivered by Parsons, C. J.

This is an action of the case to recover damages against the defendant for seducing the plaintiff under a false pretence of courtship and intention of marriage, and for getting her with child, whereby her reputation has suffered, and her peace of mind been injured. After a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of not guilty, the defendant moves to arrest the judgment. And we are of opinion that judgment must be arrested. An action of this nature is not given by statute; and there is no principle of the common law on which it can be sustained. Fornication and adultery are offences *63 in this commonwealth created by statute. And the declaration amounts to a charge against the defendant for deceiving the plaintiff, and persuading her to commit a crime, in consequence of which she has suffered damage. She is a partaker of the crime, and cannot, come into Court to obtain satisfaction for a supposed injury to which she was consenting.

It has been regretted at the bar that the law has not provided a remedy for an unfortunate female against her seducer. Those who are competent to legislate on this subject will consider, before they provide this remedy, whether seductions will afterwards be less frequent, or whether artful women may not pretend to be seduced, in order to obtain a pecuniary compensation. As the law now stands, damages are recoverable for a breach of promise of marriage ; and if seduction has been practised under color of that promise, the jury will undoubtedly consider it as an aggravation of the damages. So far the law has provided; and we do not profess to be wiser than the law.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 19 cases

View all citing references →
1814–1815: 11834–1835: 11848–1849: 11854–1855: 11858–1859: 11866–1867: 11868–1869: 11870–1871: 11874–1875: 11880–1881: 11882–1883: 11888–1889: 11890–1891: 11898–1899: 11900–1901: 11906–1907: 11926–1927: 11944–1945: 11976–1977: 118142026peak 1814 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wrynn v. Downey63 A. 401 (R.I. 1906)
  2. Cates v. McKinney48 Ind. 562 (1874)
  3. Breece v. Jett556 S.W.2d 696 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
  4. Thibault v. Lalumiere60 N.E.2d 349 (Mass. 1945)
  5. Sherman v. Rawson102 Mass. 395 (1869)
  6. Fidler v. McKinley21 Ill. 308 (1859)

Most recent

  1. Breece v. Jett556 S.W.2d 696 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
  2. Thibault v. Lalumiere60 N.E.2d 349 (Mass. 1945)
  3. Hyatt v. McCoy138 S.E. 405 (N.C. 1927)
  4. Wrynn v. Downey63 A. 401 (R.I. 1906)
  5. Graham v. Wallace50 A.D. 101 (1900)
  6. Ingwaldson v. Skrivseth75 N.W. 772 (N.D. 1898)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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