Court Opinion

ID: 9809781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:27:14.568759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:09.969808
License: Public Domain

*419Allen, J.,
dissenting: I agree to tbe general principles stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court, but do not think they have any application to tbe facts in this case.
Tbe daughter of tbe plaintiff was sixteen years of age; she left her home voluntarily according to tbe evidence of her mother, a witness for tbe plaintiff, and she was married within twelve hours. Tbe marriage was therefore valid, although the father did not consent, and upon its consummation the rights and duties of the parent, including the right to service, were transferred to the husband.
The statute (C. S., 2494) provides that “All unmarried male persons of sixteen years or upwards of age, and all unmarried females of fourteen years or upwards of age, may lawfully marry” (the exception is omitted because not applicable) ; and if the daughter, being sixteen, could lawfully marry, she could lawfully consent to marry, and this she did when she left home voluntarily for the purpose of marrying, and she was not therefore induced to leave tbe parent wrongfully or unlawfully, on which this action must rest.
I think the case of Wilkinson v. Dellinger, 126 N. C., 462, is directly in point. The action was against tbe Register of Deeds of Catawba County. Two causes of action were alleged in tbe complaint, tbe first being to recover the penalty of $200 for unlawfully issuing the license for the marriage of a daughter under eighteen years of age without the consent of her father, and tbe second cause of action “for deprivation of the services and society of bis daughter occasioned tbe plaintiff by the wrongful issue of the license.” The defendant demurred to the complaint, and the demurrer was overruled as to the first cause of action and sustained as to the second cause of action.
The demurrer of course admitted the allegations in the complaint, that the defendant had wrongfully issued the license and had deprived the plaintiff of the services and society of his daughter.
The Court has this to say of tbe second cause of action: “A female may lawfully marry at the age of fourteen years. Code, sec. 1809. From a time where meniory runs not, tbe parent and those in loco parentis have a right to tbe company and services of the child during its infancy, and any one unlawfully invading-that right is liable to tbe parent in damages. During the same period of time the law requires the parent to feed, clothe and protect the infant. This right and these duties go together, and as a general rule when one legally terminates tbe other ceases. . . . It is equally well settled that a husband, who has married an infant at a time when she may lawfully marry, i. e., after fourteen years of age, is entitled to the company, comfort and services of his wife, and that any interference therewith subjects the offender to punishment in damages. . . . The law of marriage, on *420the grounds of public policy and the peculiar relationship established by marriage, overrides the right of the parent to the services of the child, and the duties of care and protection are imposed on the husband, and at the same moment those duties as to the parent cease. So the marriage displaces parental rights instead of creating a conflict. The marriage in a case like this emancipates the wife from her former parental duties, and if damage has come to the plaintiff it is damnum absque, injuria. Cooley on Torts (2d Ed.), 278; Comrs. v. Graham, Mass., 578; Hervey v. Moseley, 7 Gray, 479; Grant v. Grant, 109 N. C., 710; S. v. Parker, 106 N. C., 711.
“It follows, therefore, that the plaintiff, having no right to control nor any interest in the services of his daughter, cannot recover damages from any one.” See, also, 20 R. C. L., 617; Harvey v. Moseley, 66, Am. Dec., 515.
I do not think the case of Howell v. Howell, 162 N. C., 283, which is said to be conclusive in the opinion of the Court, has anything to do with the question presented here, because in that case the child abducted was only six years of age, and there was no question of marriage.