McMillan v. Taylor

160 F.2d 221, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 322
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided December 2, 1946·No. 9254·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the-District Court dismissing appellants’ complaint. The action was begun by plaintiff as father and next friend of his two infant children. So far as it has any form at all, it may be said to follow that of an action by husband or wife for alienation of affections, and is one of half a dozen actions growing out of the marital difficulties of plaintiff and his wife. Taylor; appellee, was the wife’s attorney in some of those actions and and their offshoots.

The lower court dismissed on the ground that such a cause of action is not recognized in the law.

This we think is correct and, accordingly, we affirm. See Morrow v. Yannantuono, 152 Misc. 134, 273 N.Y.S. 912; and see also our memo, of July 31, 1946, 160 F.2d 217, on another phase of this action.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McMillan v. Taylor, 160 F.2d 221, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 322 (D.C. Cir. 1946).

160 F.2d 221 (McMillan v. Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. Lifespring, Inc.
713 F. Supp. 426 (District of Columbia, 1988)
Bennight v. Western Auto Supply Co.
670 S.W.2d 373 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Wallace v. Wallace
184 S.E.2d 327 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1971)
Pleasant v. Washington Sand & Gravel Co.
262 F.2d 471 (D.C. Circuit, 1958)
Scruggs v. Meredith
134 F. Supp. 868 (D. Hawaii, 1955)
Hill v. Sibley Memorial Hospital
108 F. Supp. 739 (District of Columbia, 1952)
Katz v. Katz
197 Misc. 412 (New York Supreme Court, 1950)
Edler v. MacAlpine-Downie
180 F.2d 385 (D.C. Circuit, 1950)
Henson ex rel. Henson v. Thomas
231 N.C. 173 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Henson v. Thomas
56 S.E.2d 432 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Russick v. Hicks
85 F. Supp. 281 (W.D. Michigan, 1949)