Neville v. Gile
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tout, for the alleged alienation of the affections of William Neville, the plaintiff’s husband. At the trial in the Superior • Court, before Braley, J., the defendant requested a ruling that “ on the pleadings, as matter of law, this action for the enticement of the plaintiff’s husband by the defendant cannot be maintained.” The judge refused so to rule. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.
We do not find it necessary in this case to determine whether a woman can maintain an action against another woman for the loss of consortium occasioned by her husband’s leaving her, as we are of opinion that the declaration in the case sets forth no cause of action, and that the judge should *306have ruled that the action could not be maintained on the pleadings.
The declaration charges that i( the defendant induced and allured the said Neville [the plaintiff’s husband] from his and the plaintiff’s home, and won the love and affection of the said Neville, and alienated the affection of the said…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bigaouette v. PauletMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Hadley v. HeywoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3Cited by16 opinions
- Nolin v. PearsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Quinn v. WalshMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2000
- Parker v. GordonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1949
- McGrath v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Nelson v. RichwagenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.