{ "id": 8655730, "name": "CARRIE FIELDS, by Her Next Friend, N. B. FIELDS, v. WALTER T. BRINSON", "name_abbreviation": "Fields ex rel. Fields v. Brinson", "decision_date": "1920-03-03", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "280", "last_page": "282", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "179 N.C. 280" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "176 N. C., 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "104 N. C., 877", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652588 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0877-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 N. C., 197", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 6797499 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/60/0197-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 La. Ann., 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La. Ann.", "case_ids": [ 11978938, 11978892 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/la-ann/9/0523-02", "/la-ann/9/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Lans., 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Lans.", "case_ids": [ 4839512 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/lans/5/0454-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 A. R., 100", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 N. J. L., 28", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.L.", "case_ids": [ 401205 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/njl/23/0028-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 Mich., 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1554856 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/153/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 A. 104", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "89 Ill., 545", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 826303 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/89/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Mass., 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2109441 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/110/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 Cal., 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 1960609 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/98/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 N. C., 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 346, "char_count": 4937, "ocr_confidence": 0.459, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20764434528808437 }, "sha256": "93fabebaec3903142e75479a62897dd36264a20bb2f73cea4983e4052809cecc", "simhash": "1:acd8ef12321ba11c", "word_count": 849 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:15.491038+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CARRIE FIELDS, by Her Next Friend, N. B. FIELDS, v. WALTER T. BRINSON." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThe complaint avers that the defendant \u201cdid seduce, debauch, and violently force the plaintiff, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will,\u201d alleging injury, etc. The defendant tendered as the sole issue, \u201cDid the defendant assault the plaintiff, Carrie Fields, and have intercourse with her forcibly and against her will, as alleged in the complaint?\u201d The judge submitted two issues:\n\u201c1. Did the defendant unlawfully and forcibly assault and carnally know and abuse the plaintiff, as alleged?\n\u201c2. Did the defendant wrongfully seduce and carnally know the plaintiff, as alleged?\u201d\nThe .third issue was to damages. The defendant excepted to the submission of the second issue. \" The jury responded \u201cNo\u201d to the first issue, and \u201cYes\u201d to the second, and assessed damages.\nIf this had been a criminal action, the issue requested by the defendant would have made him liable to capital punishment if found in the affirmative, though the jury could have convicted of the lesser offense, a\u00e1 in this case.\nThere was no error in submitting the two issues, as they are both embraced in the allegation in the complaint, and the defendant cannot complain that under the issues submitted he was acquitted of civil liability for the capital charge.\nEven if the charge and proof had been of the greater offense, and only the first issue had been submitted, the verdict as rendered would have been legal.\nThe whole matter has been so very fully and thoroughly discussed by Allen, J., in Tillotson v. Currin, 176 N. C., 481, as to every phase of the action, that he has left nothing to be added. After quoting from 35 Cyc., 1296, to the above effect, and numerous cases there cited, Judge Allen said; \u201cThe Court says in the case from California (Marshall v. Taylor, 98 Cal., 55) : \u2018Where a parent sued for the seduction of his daughter and consequent loss of services, and it appears that the intercourse was accomplished by force, such showing will not defeat the action, but will aggravate the injury.\u2019\n\u201cIn the ease from Massachusetts (Kennedy v. Shaw, 110 Mass., 147) : \u2018As the gist of the action is the debauching of the daughter, and the consequent supposed or actual loss of her services, it is immaterial to the plaintiffs claim under what special circumstances the' injury was wrought, or whether it was accompanied with force and violence or not. The action will lie, although trespass vi et amis might have been sustained. It would be no defense that the crime was rape and not seduction.\u2019\n\u201cAnd in the Illinois case (Leucker v. Steileu, 89 Ill., 545; S. c., 31 A. 104) it is said: \u201cWe do not think there is any legal foundation for the claim that defendant could be held to less responsibility for forcible wrong than for seduction without force. The outrage is quite as great and the mischief quite as offensive.\u2019\n\u201cWe are, therefore, of opinion, on reason and authority, that the evidence of force would not justify the denial of the right to maintain the action, and that the motion for judgment of nonsuit was properly overruled-\u201d\nJudge Allen also cites, to support the above, Velthouse v. Alderink, 153 Mich., 217; Furman v. Applegate, 23 N. J. L., 28; White v. Murtland, 20 A. R., 100; Dorman v. Moore, 5 Lans., 454; Wooten v. Geissen, 9 La. Ann., 523. To the same general principle are S. v. Cody, 60 N. C., 197; S. v. Halford, 104 N. C., 877.\nThe other exceptions in this appeal need no discussion. Indeed, the case was almost entirely one of fact, and as to the law it is completely covered by the very able opinion in Tillotson v. Currin, supra. The defendant cites no authority whatever in his brief.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clark, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Moore & Dunn and A. D. Ward for plaintiff.", "D. L. Ward, K. M. Green, and Guion & Guion for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CARRIE FIELDS, by Her Next Friend, N. B. FIELDS, v. WALTER T. BRINSON.\n(Filed 3 March, 1920.)\nSeduction \u2014 Force\u2014Pleadings\u2014Allegation^\u2014Issues.\nIn an action by the father for seductio'n of his infant daughter, 16 years of age, upon allegation that the defendant \u201cdid seduce, debauch, and violently force the plaintiff, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will,\u201d two issues were submitted, (L) Did the defendant unlawfully and forcibly assault and carnally know \u00a3,nd abuse the plaintiff as alleged? and (2) Did he wrongfully seduce and carnally know the plaintiff as alleged? Held, the issues were proper and an affirmative verdict upon either would have been legal, and the defendant cannot complain of a negative finding upon the first, acquitting him of civil liability for a capital charge, with an affirmative verdict upon the second issue. Tillot-son v. Ourrin, 176 N. C., 481, cited and applied.\nAppeal by defendant from Kerr, J., |at November Term, 1919, of CRAVEN.\nThis is an action for damages brought by the plaintiff as father, and also as next friend, on behalf of his daughter, a girl 16 years of age, for seduction.\nYerdict and judgment for the plaintiff; appeal by defendant.\nMoore & Dunn and A. D. Ward for plaintiff.\nD. L. Ward, K. M. Green, and Guion & Guion for defendant." }, "file_name": "0280-01", "first_page_order": 336, "last_page_order": 338 }