Smith v. Jones

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Smith v. Jones

115 A. 821, 121 Me. 575, 1922 Me. LEXIS 9

DecidedFebruary 6, 1922

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A. 821 (Smith v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Jones, 115 A. 821, 121 Me. 575, 1922 Me. LEXIS 9 (Me. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

An action by the husband for alienation of his wife’s affections. The declaration contains two counts, one alleging criminal conversation and the con[576]*576sequent alienation of affections, the second alleging alienation by persuasion and craft and the separation of husband and wife. The jury in answer to specific questions found for the plaintiff under the first count and assessed damages in the sum of $1,416.66. It comes before this court on a motion for a new trial on the usual grounds. An examination of the evidence does hot disclose that the verdict of the jury was manifestly wrong, nor can the damages awarded be said to be excessive in amount. Entry will be. Motion overruled.

Merrill & Merrill, for plaintiff. B. W. Blanchard, for defendant.

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

An action by the husband for alienation of his wife’s affections. The declaration contains two counts, one alleging criminal conversation and the con[576]*576sequent alienation of affections, the second alleging alienation by persuasion and craft and the separation of husband and wife. The jury in answer to specific questions found for the plaintiff under the first count and assessed damages in the sum of $1,416.66. It comes before this court on a motion for a new trial on the usual grounds. An examination of the evidence does hot disclose that the verdict of the jury was manifestly wrong, nor can the damages awarded be said to be excessive in amount. Entry will be. Motion overruled.

Merrill & Merrill, for plaintiff. B. W. Blanchard, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A. 821, 121 Me. 575, 1922 Me. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-jones-me-1922.