LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: Mary Conlon vs. Edward Cassidy
Citation: 17 R.I. 518
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1891-10-13
Docket Number: 
Pages: 518–518
Volume: 17
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: Mary Conlon vs. Edward Cassidy.

Mary Conlon vs. Edward Cassidy.
A woman cannot maintain an action against her seducer to recover damages for the seduction.
In a ease where the only good count of the declaration was for breach of promise of marriage, the writ was served by arrest, but contained no affidavit.
Held, that the action rested on contract and that the service of the writ was invalid.
Trespass on the Case. On demurrer to the declaration.
The writ in this case ordered the arrest of the defendant, describes the action as “ case for seduction and breach of promise of marriage,” was served by arrest of the defendant, and contained no affidavit.
Providence,
October 13, 1891.
Hugh J. Carroll & Thomas J. McParlin, for plaintiff.
Albert P. Greene, for defendant.

Per Curiam.
The court is of the opinion that all the counts in the declaration except that entitled “ additional count ” are to be regarded as counts for seduction, the promises of marriage being introduced merely in aggravation. To these counts the demurrer is sustained. The plaintiff cannot allege her own criminal misconduct as a ground of action. Paul v. Frazier, 3 Mass. 71; Hamilton v. Lomax, 26 Barb. S. C. 615.
The “ additional count ” is a count for a breach of promise of marriage, but the service of the writ being by arrest, and there being no such affidavit as is required by statute to justify a service by arrest in an action ex contractu, the service is invalid, and the action must therefore be dismissed. Malone v. Ryan, 14 R. I. 614.