{ "id": 8627588, "name": "ANNE B. JOHNSTON v. ALEXANDRIA G. JOHNSTON", "name_abbreviation": "Johnston v. Johnston", "decision_date": "1938-03-23", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "255", "last_page": "257", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "213 N.C. 255" } ], "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": "161 S. E., 686", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N. C., 808", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628308 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0808-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 S. E., 353", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N. C., 591", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628228 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0591-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Ind. App., 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind. App.", "case_ids": [ 5150361 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ind-app/63/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 N. W., 833", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 Mich., 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1514070 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/104/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 Conn., 296", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 492257 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/conn/78/0296-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Fed. Rep., 315", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 3722563 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/45/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Wash., 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash.,", "case_ids": [ 2450140 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash/32/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Vt., 127", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Vt.", "case_ids": [ 4478898 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/vt/84/0127-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 S. E., 947", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 Mo., 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 946123 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/147/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 S. E., 342", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "186 N. C., 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654556 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/186/0746-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 S. E., 46", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 N. C., 111", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628901 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/206/0111-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 L. R. A. (N. S.), 322", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 N. E., 762", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 Mass., 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 3503284 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/193/0556-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 S. E., 320", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 N. C., 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657432 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/124/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 S. E., 855", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N. C., 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630250 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 S. E., 766", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N. C., 358", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626355 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0358-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Johns., 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns.", "case_ids": [ 2131467 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/johns/5/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S. E., 872", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 N. C., 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272010 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/163/0393-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 S. E., 769", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 N. C., 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656159 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/179/0426-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 529, "char_count": 7493, "ocr_confidence": 0.471, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.746302763044062e-07, "percentile": 0.7078198381450038 }, "sha256": "6d9c8afb8c8988fc6b4f69addad4a022e4e4b629d610f00636c27298a2ce11b8", "simhash": "1:19ca2f4a0915e1e3", "word_count": 1322 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:08:52.368812+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ANNE B. JOHNSTON v. ALEXANDRIA G. JOHNSTON." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stact, C. J.\nA married woman sues ber motber-in-law for alienation of ber husband\u2019s affections and recovers $10,000. That is this case. Tbe record is replete with a story of domestic and family infelicity. It would serve no useful purpose to rejieat it here. Suffice it to say tbe evidence adduced on tbe bearing was such as to require its submission to tbe jury. Cottle v. Johnson, 179 N. C., 426, 102 S. E., 769; Powell v. Strickland, 163 N. C., 393, 79 S. E., 872.\nIn passing, it may be observed that parents occupy a different position from a stranger in these matters. They, too, have a great interest at stake. Times of stress, with their attendant solicitude on tbe one band and desire for aid on tbe other, naturally bring parent and child together for counsel and advice. This tbe law condones and does not condemn. Its one requirement is good faith. As said by Kent, Ch. J., in Hutcheson v. Peck, 5 Johns., 196, \u201cA father\u2019s bouse is always open to bis children; and, whether they be married or unmarried, it is still to them a refuge from evil, and a consolation in distress. Natural affection establishes and consecrates this asylum.\u201d Nor does tbe law deny to a child tbe right to appeal to its parent, in tbe language of Wister, actually or figuratively: \u201cIn this moment of uncertainty and doubt my heart turns intensely to thee from whom it has so often sought, from whom it has never failed to receive, support.\u201d On tbe other band,- tbe law will not tolerate peccancy, or officious intermeddling and malicious interference with tbe marital rights of others, either on tbe part of parents or any one else. Tbe line of demarcation between tbe permissible and tbe unlawful in this connection is to be determined by tbe quo animo of tbe parent. Tbe rights of parents end at the border of good faith. The ease was submitted to the jury under a charge enunciating the above principles, with the result as noted.\nWhile some of the exceptions are not altogether free from difficulty, nevertheless, viewing the record in its entirety, the conclusion is reached that it contains no exceptive assignment of error upon which a new trial should be awarded. The case was made to turn on whether the defendant, in what she did, was actuated by natural parental regard for her son or by malice towards the plaintiff. Hankins v. Hankins, 202 N. C., 358, 162 S. E., 766; Townsend v. Holderby, 197 N. C., 550, 149 S. E., 855; Brown v. Brown, 124 N. C., 19, 32 S. E., 320. For valuable case on the subject, see Multer v. Knibbs, 193 Mass., 556, 79 N. E., 762, as reported in 9 L. R. A. (N. S.), 322, with note.\nIt is urged for error that in enumerating the elements of damage \u201closs of his assistance\u201d was included, without limiting such future loss, if any, to its present worth or present cash value. Lamont v. Hospital, 206 N. C., 111, 173 S. E., 46. Without making definite ruling upon this point it is sufficient to say that no reference is made in the court\u2019s charge to any future loss of assistance. Murphy v. Lbr. Co., 186 N. C., 746, 120 S. E., 342. It is established by the authorities that loss of support, if shown to be of value, is a proper element of damages in a case of this kind. Nichols v. Nichols, 147 Mo., 387, 48 S. E., 947; Jenness v. Simpson, 84 Vt., 127; Stanley v. Stanley, 32 Wash., 489; Waldron v. Waldron, 45 Fed. Rep., 315; Note 8 Ann. Gas., 815; Annotation 10, British Ruling Oases, p. 394; Keezer, Marriage and Divorce (2nd Ed.), sec. 162; 30 O. J., 1148. \u201cIn fixing the amount of damages in such a case, the jury may consider the plaintiff\u2019s loss of her husband\u2019s affections and society, the loss of his support and protection, and the injury to her feelings caused by the defendant\u2019s conduct.\u201d Third headnote, Noxon v. Remington, 78 Conn., 296. There must be some evidence of the value of the loss of support before it can be made an element of the award. Rice v. Rice, 104 Mich., 371, 62 N. W., 833. \u201cThe services, conjugal affection and society of a husband is valuable property, and, in a suit by the wife for the alienation of her husband\u2019s affections, the measure of damages is the value of the husband of whom she has been deprived.\u201d First headnote, Daywitt v. Daywitt, 63 Ind. App., 444.\nThe verdict may be excessive. However, it is the rule in this jurisdiction that in the absence of some imputed error of law or legal inference arising in connection therewith the direct supervision of verdicts is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court and is not reviewable on appeal. Cole v. R. R., 211 N. C., 591, 191 S. E., 353; Goodman v. Goodman, 201 N. C., 808, 161 S. E., 686.\nNothing appears on the record which would seem to warrant a disturbance of the judgment.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stact, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Alvin S. Kartus and Beddow, Ray & Jones for plaintiff, appellee.", "Jones, Ward \u2022& Jones for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ANNE B. JOHNSTON v. ALEXANDRIA G. JOHNSTON.\n(Filed 23 March, 1938.)\n1. Husband and Wife \u00a7 34\u2014\nIn this action by a married woman against her mother-in-law for alienation of the affections of plaintiff\u2019s husband, the evidence is held, sufficient to be submitted to the jury.\n2. Husband and Wife \u00a7 32 \u2014 Parent must act in good faith in regard to marital relations of child.\nThe relation of parent and child justifies the parent in giving the child counsel and advice in regard to the child\u2019s marital relations so long as the parent acts in good faith, but the injured spouse may maintain an action for alienation when the parent acts with malice in breaking up the marital relation.\n3. Husband and Wife \u00a7 36 \u2014 Loss of support is proper element of damage in action for alienation.\nLoss of support or assistance is a proper element of damage in an action for alienation, but plaintiff must introduce some evidence of the value of support of which she was deprived in order for it to be included in the award, and the instruction on this issue in this case is held not objectionable on the ground that it failed to limit recovery to the present cash value of future assistance, there being no reference in the charge to any future loss of assistance.\n4. Damages \u00a7 14: Appeal and Error \u00a7 37b\u2014\nObjection on the ground that the verdict awarded excessive damages rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and a verdict will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of abuse of discretion or some error of law or legal inference in connection therewith.\nAppeal by defendant from Johnston, J., at August Term, 1937, of BUNCOMBE.\nCivil action for alienation of affections.\nTbe complaint alleges a cause of action by a daugbter-in-law against ber motber-in-law for alienation of ber husband\u2019s affections. Upon denial of liability and issues joined, tbe jury returned tbe following verdict:\n\u201c1. Did tbe defendant, Mrs. Alexandria G. Johnston, maliciously alienate tbe affections of tbe plaintiff\u2019s busband and cause bim to abandon bis wife, tbe plaintiff, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. If so, did tbe defendant, Alexandria G. Jobnston, act from personal ill will towards tbe plaintiff or wantonly or oppressively or from reckless indifference to ber rights? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c3. What amount, if any, of compensatory damages is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of tbe defendant, Mrs. Alexandria G. Jobnston? Answer: \u2018$10,000.\u2019\n\u201c4. What amount, if any, of punitive damages is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of tbe defendant, Mrs. Alexandria G. Jobnston ? Answer: \u2018None.\u2019 \u201d\nFrom judgment on tbe verdict tbe defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAlvin S. Kartus and Beddow, Ray & Jones for plaintiff, appellee.\nJones, Ward \u2022& Jones for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0255-01", "first_page_order": 319, "last_page_order": 321 }