Martin v. Ball
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.
1. It is essential to a right of action in a husband for the privation of the consortium of his wife, when a recovery is not sought upon the ground of adultery, that the party complained against acted with the intent to produce the wrong to the husband, -or that the party’s acts were inherently wrong and so seductive in their nature as to authorize the inference that the wrong was intended, and furthermore that such party’s conduct was a proximately contributing cause of the husband’s injury. 13 R. C. L., 1458 et seq; 30 C. J., 1118 et seq; 1 Cooley on Torts (3d ed.), 464 et seq.
2. The…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cited by13 opinions
- Joseph K. Orr v. Robert J. SassemanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
- Tice v. MandelNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1956
- Lankford v. TombariWashington Supreme Court · 1950
- Gibson v. FroweinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1966
- Kuhn v. CooperWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1955
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.