Hein v. Holdridge
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Olmsted county to recover $5,081.50 damages for seduction of plaintiffs daughter. The case was tried before Snow, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $531; and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. The action is statutory, and the statute should be given an interpretation consonant with the ordinary signification of language.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Olmsted county to recover $5,081.50 damages for seduction of plaintiffs daughter. The case was tried before Snow, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $531; and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. The action is statutory, and the statute should be given an interpretation consonant with the ordinary signification of language. The word “seduce,” in this connection, is universally understood to imply enticement by some art, influence, promise, or deception. State v. Bierce, 27 Conn. 319; Croghan v.…
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
This is an action by a father for the alleged seduction of his daughter by the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $531, and the defendant appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial. The assignments of error present two general questions for our decision. They are:
1. Did the trial court err in refusing the defendant’s request to instruct the jury that, to justify a verdict for the plaintiff, it must appear that the alleged debauching of his daughter was accomplished by some act, influence, promise, or deception naturally calculated to mislead a virtuous woman,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- White v. MurtlandIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Kennedy v. SheaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Schuek v. HagarSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Stoudt v. ShepherdMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Russell v. ChambersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Niemeyer v. McCartyIndiana Supreme Court · 1943
- Hess v. MarinariWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1918
- Reutkemeier v. NolteSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Campbell v. AarstadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Hancock v. HullettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.