105 A. 347 | Conn. | 1918
Under the evidence presented, no suggestion is made that there was not substantial evidence that the plaintiff had lost the affection and society of her husband. The defendants claim that there was no substantial evidence sustaining the following essential facts of the plaintiff's case: first, that the defendants were the effective or predominant cause of such alienation; second, that the defendants maliciously caused such alienation, that is, caused the alienation intentionally and without legal justification.
An examination of the evidence discloses that there was evidence of a state of mind on the part of the defendants tending to show that a separation of their son from his wife would be welcomed by them; furthermore, that from October, 1916, until the separation in April, 1917, the husband spent an increasing amount of time with his parents, and that neglect of his wife showed a proportional increase during said period. There was evidence of statements by the parents tending *98 to show that they had, without legal justification, directly and intentionally influenced the husband to part from his wife.
It is clear that the court dealt with these motions as if they were in the nature of motions relating to the setting aside of a verdict as against evidence. In Cook
v. Morris,
Applying these principles of law to the situation presented to the trial court in the motion to set aside the nonsuit, it is apparent that the court erred in not granting the motion.
There is error and the judgment of nonsuit is set aside.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.