Northern Wisconsin advertiser. [volume] (Wabeno, Wis.) 1898-1925, 1903-06-04
FOR M0THER-|N-LAW
SUPREME COURT GIVES DECISION
IN HER FAVOR.
HUSBAND SNOT PROPERTY
Alienation of Affections of Hubble by
His Me Held, According to Old
Common Law Rules, to Be No
Grounds for the Recovery of DAM
ages.
Madison, May so.

Madison, May so.
The Wisconsin supreme court de-
clared yesterday that a wife cannot
recover damages from her mother-in-
law for the alienation OF the affections
of the wife's husband by the mother
in-law. Inc decision was based on the
old common law rule that women are
not entitled to the same legal remedies
as men and that men are not in the
eyes of the law supposed to be as good
and as virtuous as women. The SUI
preme court was divided on the case
by vote of three to two. The ma
jority-Justices Dodge, Marshall and
Winslow-prevailed and Chief Justice
Cassoday and Justice Siebecker dis
scented.
! The action was brought by Emma
Lonstorf against her mother.in-law,
Margaret Lonstorf, to recover none
tary damages, alleging in the COM
plant that the motherin-law had ma
liciously by persuasion and threats,
induced the plaintiffs husband to
abandon, and refuse to live with or
support her, whereby his affections
became alienated and the plaintiff lost
his consortium, society, comfort, aid
and support Theh trial court, relying
on former decision of the courts, sus-
tanned demurrer of the complaint
and dismissed the action. From the
order sustaining the demurrer the
plaintiff wife appealed and was unsuc-
cessful.
! The opinion was written by Justice
Dodge. 1t holds that there is a great
difference in the property right that a
woman has in the copsortium, so
ciety, aid and comfort of her husband
and the property right which a hus-
band has III the assistance, society and
aid of his wife, The opinion holds
that there is a property right which
the husband undoubtedly has in the
reciprocal duties of the wife. The
opinion refers to the dissenting opin-
ion filed hy Chief Justice Cassoday in
a similar case, Duties against Duties,
which was decided as was the present
case, in favor of the motherin-law and
against the complaining wife. The
opinion in the DUTIES case was written
by Justice Orton, who said that 1.-THE
loss of her husbands society is not
an injury to her person, property,
means of support. or character. and
such an action cannot be forced with
in the terms or spirit of the statutes,
by the most strained and liberal con-
struction." The orion opinion goes
on to say that the woman is more do
nestle, virtuous and pure than the
husband, that she is more governed by
| pI.1"'nle and a sense Of duty and
right; but that the husband has the
right to recover damages when the
wife is enticed to leave home or other
wise fail. In the dissenting opinion
of Justice Cassoday it was claimed
that there was reason and precedent
upon which to decide that the action
of the wife was maintanable. He
said: 'In this state it has frequently
heen held that compensatory damages
include mental suffering, and that no
distinction is to be made between
other forms of mental suffering and
that which consists in a sense of wrong
or insult arising from an act really or
apparently dictated by a spirit of will
full injustice, or by deliberate inten-
ton to vex, degrade or insult" And
continuing he said: mo good reason
is perceived why this action is not
maintainable; especially is this so IL
such right of action existed in favor
of the husband and wife Jointly at
common law, as indicated by the au-
thorities cited"
The conclusion of the opinion of Jus
Itice Dodge lays the blame for the old
law still prevailing, upon the state leg
islature, for not enacting statute cor
recting the evil The opinion says:
I'm the opinion in Duties VS.. Duties
the attention OF the legislature was
expressly challenged to the question
whethehr the rule there laid down was
in accord with the public policy of the
state, of which that body is the const-
tutional declarant, but no modification
OF the rule has been made, although
in several other states where a similar
rule had been adopted by the courts,
the legislatures did act to change It,
notably in Ohio, Indiana and New
York"