Keller v. Donnelly
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appear from the Superior Court of Baltimore city. This was an action of trespass on the case, instituted by the appellee against the appellant, on the 22nd of December 1848, to recover damages for the seduction of the plaintiff’s daughter, per quod seroilium amisit. Plea, non cut. lsi Exception.
Read the full summary
Appear from the Superior Court of Baltimore city. This was an action of trespass on the case, instituted by the appellee against the appellant, on the 22nd of December 1848, to recover damages for the seduction of the plaintiff’s daughter, per quod seroilium amisit. Plea, non cut. lsi Exception. After the evidence, (which is sufficiently stated in the opinion of this court,) was offered, the plaintiff asked two instructions: 1st. If the jury believe the defendant debauched and carnally knew plaintiff’s daughter while she was under the-age of twenty-one years, the plaintiff is entitled, to.…
1Opinion of the CourtLe Grand, C. J.
This action' was instituted by the appellee-against the appellant, to recover damages for the seduction of her daughter, per quod servitium amisit.
It appears from the evidence that the daughter was born on the 2nd day of August 1829.- The evidence showing an acquaintance between the defendant and the daughter is first found in a letter from him to her,- dated the 14th day of July 1847. This letter alludes to previous interviews between the parties, but does not state when they took place. It also alludes to a conversation had in which she expressed a desire to leave her mother’s house,- and…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Scott v. LearyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1871
- Greenwood v. GreenwoodCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1868
- Brooke v. WintersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1874
- Khalifa v. ShannonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2008
- County Commissioners of Harford v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.