112 Kan. 592 | Kan. | 1923
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages from the defendants for their wrongful acts in compelling the plaintiff to separate from her husband and to leave his home, and for alienating his affections. The action was tried only as between the plaintiff and the defendant Myrtle Gooch. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and Myrtle Gooch appeals.
1. The principal question argued is that the plaintiff’s cause of action, if she had any, was barred by the statute of limitations at the time the action was commenced, on April 16,1918. This question was presented to the trial court by demurrer to the petition, by demurrer to the evidence of the plaintiff, by requested instructions, and by a motion for a new trial.
The plaintiff and J. F. Gooch were married in March, 1915, and
“1. Did the defendant Myrtle Gooch do any act after the 15th day of April, 1916, which in any manner alienated the affections of J. F. Gooch for the plaintiff? Ans. Yes.
“2. If you answer the foregoing question in the affirmative state what act or acts Myrtle Gooch did after said date. Ans. Interfering in telephone conversa- * tion and continuously exerting her influence with J. F. Gooch against the plaintiff.
“3. Were the affections of J. F. Gooch for the plaintiff, if any, alienated before the 15th day of April, 1916. Ans. Both before and after.”
The plaintiff testified that J. F. Gooch had ceased to have any affection for her before she left and went to Wichita. The defendant contends that this action, being one for damages on account of alienation of affections, accrued when the affections were alienated. That is not all there is to the action. The petition alleged and the evidence tended to prove that there was a deliberate purpose and effort on the part of Myrtle Gooch to-separate the plaintiff and J. F. Gooch. Those efforts continued until a separation was effected; and, according to the evidence and the findings, those efforts continued after the separation. This action is one against the defendant for damages caused by her wrongful conduct in bringing about that separation. Lawsuits of this kind are known as actions for damages for alienation of affections, but that is not necessarily the nature
2. Defendant Myrtle Gooch filed a motion to set aside the answers to the first and second questions submitted to the jury. That motion was denied. It is argued that there was no evidence to sustain those answers. The plaintiff testified that after she went to Wichita she attempted to talk to her husband over, the long-distance telephone but was prevented from so doing by Myrtle Gooch. The evidence of the plaintiff was- sufficient to sustain the answers to those questions.
The judgment is affirmed.