Hutchins v. Day
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtPless, J.
While an action for civil seduction may be maintained without a promise to marry, the mere proof of intercourse, and no more, is not sufficient to warrant recovery. Volenti non fit injuria. Hardin v. Davis, 183 N.C. 46, 110 S.E. 602. This Latin phrase is translated to mean “To the consenting no injury is done. A person who consents to a thing cannot complain of it as an injury.” Upon the plaintiff’s testimony she started spending weekends with defendant in a motel within a few days after she had met him, but claims she did not have sexual relations with him until several weekends of this…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Shaw v. LeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Dawson v. DawsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Thome v. MacKenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Earshlie I. Albert v. Margaret C. McGrathCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1960
- A. B. v. C. D.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1940
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Vickers v. VickersSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1970
- McCraney v. FlanaganCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Berry v. LindsaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1971
- Wildey v. SpringsDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1994
- Hutchins v. DaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967