Abrahams v. Kidney
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for seducing the plaintiff’s minor daughter, “ whereby she became sick and unable to render • service to the plaintiff.” Trial in the superior court, before Lord, J., who allowed the following bill of exceptions: “ The declaration contained no allegation, and it was not contended, that the defendant’s seduction of the plaintiff’s daughter was followed by pregnancy or any sexual disease.
Read the full summary
Tort for seducing the plaintiff’s minor daughter, “ whereby she became sick and unable to render • service to the plaintiff.” Trial in the superior court, before Lord, J., who allowed the following bill of exceptions: “ The declaration contained no allegation, and it was not contended, that the defendant’s seduction of the plaintiff’s daughter was followed by pregnancy or any sexual disease. Evidence was offered to show that, by reason of the seduction, and the general injury to the health of the daughter consequent thereon it became necessary for the plaintiff to send her to New York for her…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
At the trial of this case, the plaintiff offered to show that, by reason of the seduction, and of the general injury to the health of the daughter consequent thereon, she lost the services of her said daughter. It having appeared that the defendant’s seduction of the daughter was not followed by pregnancy or by any sexual disease, the presiding judge excluded the evidence, and ruled that the action could not be maintained. The bill of exceptions is very brief, and does not state the grounds upon which the ruling was based ; but we think that, upon a fair construction of it, the ruling was to…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Blagge v. IlsleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Mohelsky v. HartmeisterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
- Wendt v. LentzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
- Lawyer v. FritcherNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Lawyer v. FritcherNew York Supreme Court · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.