ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

though it be wrongfully, and she intends to return to her father, he has a right to her services, and may maintain the action. The seduction of a female apprentice while she is a minor, and after her master turns her away, or after, with the consent of the master, her return to reside with her father, gives the latter a cause of action against the seducer.2 Where the relation of master and servant existed at the time of seduction, it is sufficient evidence of loss of service caused thereby to show that a confinement took place in the house of a third person, at a time when either the right to the service was continuing, or, although interrupted by an intermediate contract of service, had again risen by its determination, the girl seduced having had at such time an animus revertendi, but not carrying out her intention in consequence of her impending confinement.3 Where a female has been seduced while a minor, her father has a right of action for such seduction after she attains her majority. This right of action is not taken away or negatived by the provision of the statute which gives to an unmarried female the right to prosecute an action for her own seduction.*

ILLUSTRATIONS.-A verbally agreed with B that his daughter should live in B's family as servant until her arrival at eighteen years of age, when B was to give her an outfit, and in the mean while was to provide the girl with board, clothing, and schooling, and at a proper time send her to the minister for confirmation; A reserved the right to call his daughter home, in case of sickness, to help the family. The girl, while in B's service, was seduced by C, his son. Held, that this parol contract did not transfer the father's right to service beyond recall, and an action for seduction could be brought by A against C: Mohry v. Hoffman, 86 Pa. St. 358. The plaintiff's daughter was employed by a third person, but the plaintiff required her to spend a part of every Sunday at home, and while there she did work for him. Held, that she was his servant, so that he could maintain the action: Kennedy v. Shea, 110 Mass. 147;

[blocks in formation]

14 Am. Rep. 584. A parent bound her daughter as an apprentice, who was seduced, upon which the indentures were canceled by consent, and the daughter returned to the parent's house, and was there delivered of a child. Held, that the parent might maintain an action on the case for the seduction: Sargent v., 5 Cow. 106. A daughter of the age of nineteen years, with the consent of her father, went to live with her uncle, for whom she worked when she pleased, and he agreed to pay her for her work, but there was no agreement for her continuance in his house for any time. While at her uncle's house she was seduced and got with a child, and immediately afterwards returned to her father's house, where she was maintained, and the expense of her lying-in paid by him, though if the misfortune had not happened she had no intention of returning to her father. Held, that there was such a constructive service on behalf of the father as entitled him to maintain the action for seduction: Martin v. Payne, 9 Johns. 387; 6 Am. Dec. 88.

§ 1114. By Mother. The mother after the father's death may maintain an action for the seduction of a minor daughter, being entitled to her services.1 She may sue (according to some authorities) where the seduction took place before the father's death, and the confinement afterwards; so where the daughter, though over twenty-one, is rendering services to the widowed. mother; so where the mother has been deserted by her husband. To entitle a mother to sue, it must appear that her husband is dead, or that the custody of the daughter had been decreed to her, and that, in the absence of any proof that the relation of master and servant existed between them, she was entitled to her daughter's services.5

1 Coon v. Moffett, 3 N. J. L. 583; 4 Am. Dec. 392; Furman v. Van Sise, 56 N. Y. 435; 15 Am. Rep. 441; Gay . Durland, 51 N. Y. 424; 50 Barb. 100; Keller v. Donnelly, 5 Md. 211; Sargent .-, 5 Cow. 106; Felkner . Scarlet, 29 Ind. 154; Blanchard r. Illsey, 120 Mass. 487; 21 Am. Rep. 535. Contra, South v. Denniston, 2 Watts, 474; Bartley v. Richtmyer, 4 N. Y. 38; 53 Am. Dec. 338, Bronson,

C. J.

Coon v. Moffett, 3 N. J. L. 583; 4 Am. Dec. 392; Parker v. Meek, 3

Sneed, 59. Contra, Heinrichs v. Kerchner, 35 Mo. 378; Logan v. Murray, 6 Serg. & R. 175; 9 Am. Dec. 423; Vosselv. Cole, 10 Mo. 634; 47 Am. Dec. 136.

3 An action will lie in favor of a widowed mother, living with her daughter, who is over twenty-one years of age, and is owner of the establishment, but renders service to the mother and family; Villepigue v. Shuler, 3 Strob. 462.

Badgley v. Decker, 44 Barb. 577.
Hobson v. Fullerton, 4 Ill. App. 282.

ILLUSTRATIONS.-A girl of twenty-four years of age, who, after her father's death, resided with her mother, discharging domestic duties for her, was seduced in her mother's house, on the night previous to her emigrating to America in pursuance of previous arrangements. She entered into another service on her arrival in America, but subsequently, finding herself pregnant, left that service in order to return home. On her return to Ireland, she went to reside in her sister's house, where she remained until her confinement had taken place, a considerable time after which she returned to the house of her mother, who then brought an action for the seduction. Held, that there was a loss of service for which the action was maintainable: Long v. Keightly, 5 Cent. L. J. 80. The plaintiff's husband had been absent and unheard from more than seven years. The daughter was thirty-one years old. The testimony on the part of plaintiff tended to prove that the daughter had always lived at home with plaintiff, had assisted her about her household work, had done errands for the family, had worked in a neighboring factory most of the time since she was fifteen years old, and had paid her wages to plaintiff, who had used them in the support of her family. A verdict was directed for defendant. Held, erroneous: Davidson v. Abbott, 52 Vt. 570; 36 Am. Rep. 767. D. seduced the daughter of P. The daughter was sixteen years old and in P.'s employ. Her father was dead, and P. had remarried. P., however, controlled and supported the daughter, and D. had always accounted to P. for the daughter's wages. Held, that P. had a right of action for the seduction: Lampman v. Hammond, 3 Thomp. & C. 293. A daughter at the age of eight or nine years left the residence of her mother, at the suggestion of friends, because the mother was a common prostitute, and went to reside in the family of the defendant, where she continued until she was seventeen or eighteen years of age, when she was seduced by him, and left the state with him, and went to Louisiana, where she was delivered of a child. From the time she left her mother's house, there was no intercourse between the mother and daughter, and the mother continued to be a prostitute. Held, that the mother could not maintain the action: Roberts v. Connelly, 14 Ala. 235.

§ 1115. By Other Persons. --The action may be maintained by a person standing in loco parentis to the girl;' as a grandfather of an infant female standing in loco parentis

'Ball v. Bruce, 21 Ill. 161; Keller v. Donnelly, 5 Md. 211; Bartley v. Richtmyer, 4 N. Y. 38; 53 Am. Dec.

338; Davidson v. Goodall, 18 N. H. 423; Inman v. Dearman, 11 East, 23; Ingersoll v. Jones, 5 Barb. 661.

to her;1 a cousin who has furnished her a home;2 an aunt or uncle who has brought up the girl; a guardian;1 a step-father. Where a minor step-daughter leaves the house of her step-father, and is seduced while in the service of a third person, the step-father cannot maintain an action for the seduction, although before the birth of her child she returns to his house, engages in his service, and is there nursed and attended during her confinement. His personal representative may maintain an action for the seduction in the father's lifetime."

ILLUSTRATIONS. - The woman seduced resided at the time in the family of a married sister without paying for her board, but with no agreement with her father or herself for any payment for services. Held, that the sister's husband could not sue as master for her seduction: Blanchard v. Ilsley, 120 Mass. 489; 21 Am. Rep. 535. The girl seduced had a mother living, but had not heard from her father for fourteen years, and supposed him dead; she had lived in the plaintiff's family most of the time since she was seven years old, and the plaintiff had taken her to bring up; that she was treated by him like one of his own children, and worked for him as they did, and was supported, and clothed, and educated by him, and taken care of by him during her sickness, and he paid the expenses of her lying-in. Held, that the plaintiff stood in loco parentis, and might maintain the action, although the girl at the time of her seduction lived and worked in the family of another with the plaintiff's assent: Ingersoll v. Jones, 5 Barb. 661.

§ 1116. Where Woman is of Age. — Where the daughter is over twenty-one, the father may mantain an action for her seduction, if she lives in his house, and he can command her services, even though at the time of the

8

1 Certwell v. Hoyt, 6 Hun, 575; 13 N. Y. 570.

2 Davidson v. Goodall, 18 N. H. 423. Manvell v. Thomson, 6 Car. & P. 303; Edmonson v. Mitchell, 2 Term Rep. 4.

Fernsler v. Moyer, 3 Watts & S. 416; 39 Am. Dec. 33; Palmer v. Oakley, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 433; 47 Am. Dec. 41. Contra, Blanchard v. Ilsley, 120 Mass. 487; 21 Am. Rep. 535.

5

Maguinay v. Saudek, 5 Sneed, 146. Though the daughter is the ille

gitimate child of his wife: Bracy v. Kibbe, 31 Barb. 273.

6 Bartley v. Richtmyer, 4 N. Y. 38; 53 Am. Dec. 338.

'Noice v. Brown, 39 N. J. L. 569.

8 West v. Strouse, 38 N. J. L. 184; Vossel v. Cole, 10 Mo. 634; 47 Am. Dec. 136; Lipe v. Eisenlerd, 32 N. Y. 229; Kendrick v. McCrary, 11 Ga. 603; Wilbert v. Hancock, 5 Bush, 567; Mercer v. Walmsley, 5 Har, & J. 27; 9 Am. Dec. 486.

seduction she was temporarily absent.' Where she lives in his house, the presumption is that she renders services, or that he can command them. But in the case of an adult away from home, clearer proof of service is required. And the mere permission of the master of an adult servant allowing her after work to assist her mother does not give the latter any right of action. The father may sue, after she reaches twenty-one, for her seduction while a minor.5

§ 1117. Statutory Remedy. Statutes in several states allow suits for seduction to be brought for the benefit of the woman herself, some near relative or a guardian being suffered to bring it, and all allegations of loss of service being dispensed with.

6

§ 1118. Defenses. If the parent consent to the seduction either actually or impliedly, as by introducing the daughter to profligate persons, or permitting her to keep company with such people, or encouraging or conniving at the seducer's acts, this is a bar to the action."

1 Lipe v. Eisenlerd, 32 N. Y. 229.

2 Id.; Brown v. Ramsay, 29 N. J. L. 118; Hudkins v. Haskins, 22 W.Va. 645. At any rate, very slight evidence of service is sufficient: Emery v. Gowen, 4 Me. 33; 16 Am. Dec. 233; Vossel v. Cole, 10 Mo. 634; 47 Am. Dec. 136.

3 Nickleson v. Stryker, 10 Johns. 115; 6 Am. Dec. 319; Patterson v. Thompson, 24 Ark. 55; Lee v. Hodges, 13 Gratt. 726; Miller v. Thompson, 1 Wend. 447; Briggs v. Evans, 5 Ired. 21; Mercer v. Walmsley, 5 Har. & J. 27; 9 Am. Dec. 486.

[blocks in formation]

Vossell v. Cole, 10 Mo. 634; 47 Am. Dec. 136; Travis v. Barger, 24 Barb. 614; Smith v. Mastin, 15 Wend. 270; Graham v. Smith, 1 Edw. Ch. 267; Richardson v. Fouts, 11 Ind. 466; Hollis v. Wells, 3 Pa. L. J. 169, the court saying: "This action is always founded on a wrong done by the defendant, and as regards the will and consent of the father, the daughter is supposed to be violated with force. It is this absence of consent on his part, this violation of his daughter's chastity against his will, that entitles him to sustain his action for a compensation in damages. When the criminal intercourse has been had with his knowledge and under his connivance, he would seek redress with but an ill grace indeed. He would not actually be a particeps criminis, but in want of decency and in breach of parental duty, he would approach very near to it. His indifference to his daughter's morals and chastity would meet with

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »