Doyle v. Jessup
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of trespass, per quod servitium amisit, brought by the defendant against the plaintiff, for the seduction of his daughter. Declaration in the usual form. Plea, not guilty.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass, per quod servitium amisit, brought by the defendant against the plaintiff, for the seduction of his daughter. Declaration in the usual form. Plea, not guilty. The venue was changed to Wabash county, and at the September term, 1860, of said court, the cause was tried before Beecher, Judge, and a jury, who returned a verdict for the defendant in error, of $800. At the same term, motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were entered and overruled, and judgment rendered on verdict. Exceptions were taken at the time to the judgment of the. court, and bill…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
This was an action on the case by the father, for the seduction of his daughter. Technically, the ground of recovery is the loss of the services of the daughter, and the rule of the books seems to be, that the father must prove some service, in order to entitle him to maintain the action. This is nominally the ground on which the plaintiff’s right of action rests, while, practically, the right to recover rests on far higher grounds—that is, the relation of parent and child, or guardian and ward, or husband and wife, as well as that of master and servant; and it seems almost beneath the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. YaryanIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
- Hobson v. FullertonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1879