Leavell v. Leavell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. Nick M. Bradley, Judge. (1) There is no evidence to show any common design, or concert of action or understanding between defendants, the purpose of which was to separate plaintiff and her husband. This ivas necessary to sustain her action. Hunt v. Simmonds, 19 Mo. 590; Alexander v. Eefle, 9 Mo. App. 143; Bowman v. Lickey, 86 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. Nick M. Bradley, Judge. (1) There is no evidence to show any common design, or concert of action or understanding between defendants, the purpose of which was to separate plaintiff and her husband. This ivas necessary to sustain her action. Hunt v. Simmonds, 19 Mo. 590; Alexander v. Eefle, 9 Mo. App. 143; Bowman v. Lickey, 86 Mo. App. 47. (2) The evidence fails to show any pre-arranged or agreed course of conduct or action on part of defendants ; the acts of one were not based on or connected with the acts of the other, but were distinct and separate.…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
Defendants are husband and wife and this action was instituted to recover damages from them, for alienating the affections of plaintiff’s husband who was the son of the defendants and who is known in this record as Garfield, his Christian name. There was a judgment in the trial court for the plaintiff.
The case is before us the second time. It is reported in 114 Mo. App. 24. By reference thereto, it will be found that plaintiff, a young woman nineteen years of age, and a son of defendants, twenty-two years of age, were married and came immediately to' live with defendants who were elderly…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Tucker v. TuckerMississippi Supreme Court · 1896
- Goetz v. AmbsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Hutcheson v. PeckNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Rice v. RiceMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Nichols v. NicholsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Woodhouse v. Woodhouse Et Ux.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1925
- Luick v. ArendsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- Heisler v. HeislerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- Miller v. MillerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- Schumacher v. Evangelical Deaconess SocietyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.