Miller v. Pearce
Supreme Court of Vermont
Case for alienation of .the affections of plaintiff’s husband. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the September Term, 1910, Rutland County, Waterman, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the CourtRowell, C. J.
This is case for alienating the affections of .plaintiff’s husband. It was proper to allow Cahee to testify to the value of the defendant’s house, for exemplary damages were claimed. Rea v. Harrington, 58 Vt. 181, 188, 2 Atl. 475, 56 Am. Rep. 561.
It was also proper to allow the witness Bresee to say that the occurrence to which he testified about the defendant’s motioning plaintiff’s husband into Baker’s drug store and there drink*324ing soda with, him was the subject of remark between him and Baker, for it specified a ground for his recollection and tended to strengthen it. I Wig. Ev. §730. This…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad v. Van SteinburgMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- Scott v. O'BrienCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Fratini v. CasliniSupreme Court of Vermont · 1894
- Rea v. HarringtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1885
- Knapp v. WingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1900
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Woodhouse v. Woodhouse Et Ux.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1925
- Cummings v. Connecticut General Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1928
- Sandler v. SchmidtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1953
- Moelleur v. MoelleurMontana Supreme Court · 1918
- Rott v. GoehringNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.