Taylor v. Keefe

Connecticut Superior Court

Taylor v. Keefe

14 Conn. Super. Ct. 484

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 11, 1947

DocketFile No. 69031

StatusPublished

This text of 14 Conn. Super. Ct. 484 (Taylor v. Keefe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Keefe, 14 Conn. Super. Ct. 484 (Colo. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

The facts, admitted by demurrer, are these: the plaintiff is the son of Mrs. Leon Taylor, with whom he had been living in happiness for many years. In 1943, the defendant by his arts, blandishments and seductions, alienated her love for the plaintiff. As a result thereof, the plaintiff has suffered great distress and, in being deprived of his mother's love, has lost much happiness and been denied her social and moral support, guidance and protection.

These facts do not state a good cause of action. Coulter v.Coulter, 73 Colo. 144. See also Morrow v. Yannantuono,273 N.Y.S. 912; Eschenbach v. Benjamin, 195 Minn. 378; Cole v.Cole, 277 Mass. 50. And no action lies by a parent for the loss of affection of a child. Pyle v. Waechter, 202 Iowa 695;Miles v. Cuthbert, 122 N.Y.S. 703.

While the defendant may have destroyed a right of the plaintiff to enjoy the love of his mother, that right is a moral, natural right and not a legal one.

The demurrer is sustained.

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

The facts, admitted by demurrer, are these: the plaintiff is the son of Mrs. Leon Taylor, with whom he had been living in happiness for many years. In 1943, the defendant by his arts, blandishments and seductions, alienated her love for the plaintiff. As a result thereof, the plaintiff has suffered great distress and, in being deprived of his mother's love, has lost much happiness and been denied her social and moral support, guidance and protection.

These facts do not state a good cause of action. Coulter v.Coulter, 73 Colo. 144. See also Morrow v. Yannantuono,273 N.Y.S. 912; Eschenbach v. Benjamin, 195 Minn. 378; Cole v.Cole, 277 Mass. 50. And no action lies by a parent for the loss of affection of a child. Pyle v. Waechter, 202 Iowa 695;Miles v. Cuthbert, 122 N.Y.S. 703.

While the defendant may have destroyed a right of the plaintiff to enjoy the love of his mother, that right is a moral, natural right and not a legal one.

The demurrer is sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Conn. Super. Ct. 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-keefe-connsuperct-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack