195 Wis. 650 | Wis. | 1928
Lead Opinion
The case presents a real tragedy. A son of respected parents married a woman whose character is above reproach. The wife and the parents have abundantly demonstrated their unselfish and devoted love of this man, whose uncontrolled appetite for liquor has imposed a heavy burden of sorrow and of suffering upon both the plaintiff and these defendants.
The testimony shows that these parents did not welcome plaintiff as a daughter-in-law. She was a divorced woman with a child and was seven years older than their son. She had gone with him to Waukegan, Illinois, to be married, without their knowledge and consent. They had hoped that he would marry another girl. As parents they had the right to object to this marriage and to build other castles in the air for their son. They had the right to refuse to make the plaintiff a member of their family. They had the right to advise their son to leave his wife, if they honestly believed that conditions were “such as to demand separation, provided they act in good faith and have substantial reasons for believing that the advice given is proper.” Baird v. Carle, 157 Wis. 565, 567, 147 N. W. 834.
But the record is barren of any competent evidence whatever that these parents advised their son to leave the plaintiff. The most that can be said is that there is proof of cir
Opposed to these circumstances upon which the plaintiff relies is the undisputed fact that these parents time and again took their son to the plaintiff’s home when she asked their assistance because he was incapacitated by the use of liquor; that the father told the son that he ought to live with his wife, and that following that advice the son did go to the plaintiff’s home and live with her as husband and wife for more than a year. The plaintiff testified that the father told her that she and the son were married and that they must make the best of things.
One spouse who seeks to recover damages of the parents of the other spouse for the alienation of the affections of that other spouse has the burden of establishing two facts: (1) that the acts and advice of the parents were the controlling cause of the separation and of the loss of affections; (2) that such acts were the result of malice or bad intent on the part of the parents toward the spouse claiming damages. McLery v. McLery, 186 Wis. 137, 142, 202 N. W. 156.
“The relations of a parent and child in their moral aspects, and legal as well, begin at the inception of life and do not wholly - end until life ends, and those relations carry with them certain duties and privileges as to advice and protection and helpfulness in case of need, the observance of which is so natural and so laudable and so essential to the family happiness and welfare that acts ostensibly promotive thereof are not to be lightly held to have had a wicked purpose for
The law presumes that these parents did what they did for the purpose of promoting the welfare of their son and not to maliciously wrong this plaintiff. McLery v. McLery, 186 Wis. 137, 142, 202 N. W. 156. The proof does not overcome that presumption in this case. It is not sufficient to assert that the record discloses no other reasonable cause for the separation.
In order to recover plaintiff must go farther and establish that the acts of the parents were the controlling cause of the separation and that these parents acted “maliciously and in bad faith.” Baird v. Carle, 157 Wis. 565, 567, 147 N. W. 834.
It appears very plainly that the reason for the unfortunate situation which has caused all the parties to this action to suffer in a way that cannot be measured by dollars and cents is that the chief actor in this tragedy has been induced to do what he has done by the rash impulses that have controlled him at times when he has been robbed of his reason by his compelling appetite for strong drink. He is the one who should compensate the plaintiff for the loss she has sus
When the plaintiff and these defendants had to seek him in the saloons and upon the streets, often in the dead of night, the plaintiff recognized that he was in as great need of the care and protection of his parents as when he was an infant in his mother’s arms. What these defendants did they did to promote the welfare of their son, not to maliciously wrong the plaintiff.
The finding that these parents intentionally alienated the love and affection of their son for the plaintiff and caused him to desert her and remain away from her is so clearly against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence that it must be set aside.
By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). Fully-appreciating the privileges enjoyed by parents in. the matter of advising their children with reference to marital affairs, I still think the verdict in jthis case is supported by abundant evidence. To be sure, the evidence is circumstantial, but, generally, this must be the character of the evidence in such cases. If the verdict must be based upon direct evidence, then in the great majority of cases of this character the plaintiff must fail.
The evidence shows that from the beginning the defendants were hostile to the marriage.. This was not because they objected to their son’s entering into the marriage relation. They objected to his marrying the plaintiff. Before the marriage of their son to the plaintiff they actively promoted a match between him and another girl. Their attitude towards the plaintiff persisted after the marriage. This manifested itself in numerous ways. They never invited her
Plaintiff and her husband lived happily together. There is nothing in this record to indicate a lack of affection between them. She was a most faithful and indulgent wife. She put up with his weakness for drink without complaint. There is no evidence of any trouble between them. A consideration of their relation reveals no reason, justification, or excuse for his desertion of her.
It will serve no purpose to review the evidence in detail. He left her on April 25, 1926, and her testimony with reference to the occasion is as follows: “We had company the early part of the evening and he [her husband] sat there in kind of a quiet manner until it got to be about 9 or 10 o’clock, I would say, when he told me he had something to tell me, that he had to go out to get couple of drinks first. He went out and got a couple of drinks and he came back and told me that he thought it was best we separate, that would be for the best as long as his parents were using the attitude they did; and I told him to wait until the following day when he didn’t have any liquor in him and we would discuss that. So we waited a short time, and he went out for some more liquor, and he brought back a bottle. He then went to the telephone and called his father. He says, T am ready now, you can come.’ Then he left the telephone and he came, put his arms around me, told me that he cared for me but it was for the
When we consider the general attitude maintained at all times by the defendants towards the plaintiff — that they endeavored to bring about an annulment of the marriage- — that although they were at all times deeply interested in the son, they refused to assist him in any financial way — refused to assist him in the purchase of furniture for the home, and even reduced his salary to make it more difficult for him to maintain the marital relation — the fact that the suggestion of separation was deliberately, though apparently reluctantly, made — the fact that immediately thereafter the son called his father and said “You can come now,” and that within ten minutes the father appeared upon the scene and took his son home, — clearly indicates (1) that the proposal to separate did not spring from the free will of the son; (2) that it was part of a prearranged plan; (3) that the father was waiting for the news; and (4) upon hearing from the .son he promptly came and took him away.
These circumstances under which he deserted her, considered in the light of the genial relations always existing between the plaintiff and her husband, and the attitude maintained by the parents towards the plaintiff, amply justified the inference which the jury evidently indulged. The case was submitted to the jury under proper instructions, an able trial judge permitted their verdict to stand, and I do not think it should be disturbed.
