*1 Error, Defendant in Bricker Brownstein, Morris Joe Error. Plaintiffs Bricker, Jennie filed St. Louis Court of March Taylo'i\ Mayer plaintiffs in error. Shifrin *2 <& Bass Bass for defendant error. brings against defendants SUTTON, C. Plaintiff this action marriage daughter breach her damages inducing for their

recover below, engagement was a plaintiff. There by error. brought the writ of case here and defendants pre question petition is the sole sufficiency, not, of the The wholly to state say petition fails Defendants that the here. sented ground reversal of the and ask a a cause on that defendants, by their petition is that gist The of the averments of daughter persuasion, persuaded” induced and their “conduct inducing engagement. act defendants in The of the to break the engagement is char daughter to break the persuading their not, helpfulness in however, of by vigorous epithets, acterized view making Defendants’ a cause of action. that out supported by au wholly action is well to state by follows: Glencoe Land them, cited and relied on as thorities *3 93 ; 439, 138 Mo. S. W. Co., v. Hudson Com. 40 Gravel Co. Bros. 187 ; Conway O Boehm, Sup. ’Brien, v. Mass. Y. Stiffler v. N. 498 ; Minsky Staenstein, 425 ; Tarpilouskos, Mass. v. Lukas v. 978 ; Whetstone, 34 Ind. 383. App. J. We 6 N. R. Leonard Misc. announcing a con with authorities have been furnished not such, trary else would are none view. We assume there not, however, brought attention. He has favored them our any suggestions whatsoever, peti brief, support us with a uphold tion or

We think the state rec- judgment be reversed. ommend that opinion foregoing C., adopted PER of Sutton, CURIAM: The is opinion as the of the court. The of the circuit court is accordingly Haid, J., Nipper, P. JJ., reversed. and Becker and concur. Highway Appel ex

State rel. State of Commission Missouri, Day Myrtle Day v. A. N. lant, (his wife) and Federal (holder Land Bank of St. Louis of a Defend mortgage), ants. 47

St. Louis Court filed March