Neville v. Gile

Ellen Neville v. Olive F. Gile

Neville v. Gile, 54 N.E. 841 (Mass. 1899)

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: October 18, 1899
Judges: Lathrop
Citations: 54 N.E. 841174 Mass. 3051899 Mass. LEXIS 917

Cited by 16 2 descriptions by later courts

Headnotes

Action by one Woman against another for Alienation of Husband’s Affections. A declaration, in an action by one woman against another, which charges only the alienation of the affections of the plaintiff’s husband, sets forth no cause of action.

Summary

Tout, for the alleged alienation of the affections of William Neville, the plaintiff’s husband. At the trial in the Superior • Court, before Braley, J., the defendant requested a ruling that “ on the pleadings, as matter of law, this action for the enticement of the plaintiff’s husband by the defendant cannot be maintained.” The judge refused so to rule. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court — Lathrop

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

Lathrop, J.

We do not find it necessary in this case to determine whether a woman can maintain an action against another woman for the loss of consortium occasioned by her husband’s leaving her, as we are of opinion that the declaration in the case sets forth no cause of action, and that the judge should *306 have ruled that the action could not be maintained on the pleadings.

The declaration charges that i( the defendant induced and allured the said Neville [the plaintiff’s husband] from his and the plaintiff’s home, and won the love and affection of the said Neville, and alienated the affection of the said Neville from the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff has been greatly distressed in mind, and, by reason of the said Neville’s alienation as aforesaid, has neglected to support and care for the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff has suffered physically as well as mentally, and has been distressed in body and mind.”

In this Commonwealth, alienation of affections alone is not a substantive cause of action, even where a husband brings the action, but is merely an aggravation of damages, for the loss of consortium. Bigaouette v. Paulet, 134 Mass. 123 . Evans v. O’Connor, ante, 287. See also Lellis v. Lambert, 24 Ont. App. 653.

The judge who tried this case was probably misled by the reporter’s statement of the second count in Hadley v. Heywood, 121 Mass. 236 . It is there said that the second count alleged “ that the defendant had alienated the affections of the plaintiff’s wife from the plaintiff, and had enticed her to desert him.” An inspection of the papers in the case shows, however, that loss of consortium was properly charged. It may also be said that in Hadley v. Heywood no question arose on the pleadings.

There is no ground for the position that in an action for unlawfully enticing away or harboring a man’s wife, or even for criminal conversation, it is not necessary to allege loss of consortium. See Winsmore v. Greenbank, Willes, 577; Guy v. Livesey, Cro. Jac. 501; Hyde v. Scyssor, Cro. Jac. 538; 2 Chit. Pl. (6th Am. ed.) 643; Oliver, Prec. (3d ed.) 457.

For these reasons, without further considering the exceptions, we are of opinion that they must be sustained.

So ordered.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(allegation that plaintiff “suffered physically as well as mentally, and has been distressed in body and mind,” stated “an aggravation of damages for the loss of consortium” [emphasis original])

Quinn v. Walsh, 732 N.E.2d 330 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000)
(“[i]n this Commonwealth, alienation of affections alone is not a substantive cause of action”)

Quinn v. Walsh, 732 N.E.2d 330 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000)

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Webber v. Benbow97 N.E. 758 (Mass. 1912)
Quinn v. Walsh732 N.E.2d 330 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000)
Parker v. Gordon178 F.2d 888 (1st Cir. 1949)
Dodge v. Rush28 App. D.C. 149 (1906)
Nolin v. Pearson77 N.E. 890 (Mass. 1906)
Nelson v. Richwagen95 N.E.2d 545 (Mass. 1950)

Most recent

Quinn v. Walsh732 N.E.2d 330 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000)
Ronan v. Briggs220 N.E.2d 909 (Mass. 1966)
Nelson v. Richwagen95 N.E.2d 545 (Mass. 1950)
Parker v. Gordon178 F.2d 888 (1st Cir. 1949)
White v. Thomson85 N.E.2d 246 (Mass. 1949)
McGrath v. Sullivan21 N.E.2d 533 (Mass. 1939)

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

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Hadley v. Heywood, 121 Mass. 236 (1876)	27
	Bigaouette v. Paulet, 134 Mass. 123 (1883)	47

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list