Morgan v. Martin

42 A. 354, 92 Me. 190, 1898 Me. LEXIS 102
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided November 29, 1898·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Strout, J.

This is an action by a married woman against another woman for alienating the affections of plaintiff’s husband. The cause comes up on exceptions to a ruling sustaining a demurrer to the declaration.

This court 'held in Doe v. Roe, 82 Maine, 503, that such suit could not be maintained. We are aware that in some jurisdictions it is held otherwise: but we are satisfied with the reasons given in that case, and adhere to them. As said in that.case, “an action in favor of the husband- for the seduction of his wife has been regarded of doubtful expediency.” Such actions “seem to be better calculated to inflict pain upon the innocent members of the families of the parties than to secure redress to the persons injured.”

We are not disposed to enlarge the range of this class of actions.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Morgan v. Martin, 42 A. 354, 92 Me. 190, 1898 Me. LEXIS 102 (Me. 1898).

42 A. 354 (Morgan v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McCollister v. McCollister
138 A. 472 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1927)
Hodge v. Wetzler
55 A. 49 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1903)
Wolf v. Frank
52 L.R.A. 102 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1900)
Knapp v. Wing
47 A. 1075 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1900)