the loss of health is due to mental suffering, not the consequence of the seduction, but the result of subsequent intervening causes, such an abandonment by the seducer,67 or shame resulting from exposure, it is too remote, and the action is not maintainable.

resides with her "Acts of service enough that the This is so where

71

Where the daughter is under age and father, loss of service will be presumed. by the daughter are not necessary; it is parent has a right to command them." 6 she resides elsewhere, or is in the service of another, if the parent has not relinquished past the power of recall a right to control her services,70 and no waiver or relinquishment fraudulently obtained will bar his action. If the daughter be of age, it is essential that she be in the father's service.72 It is not necessary, however, to make proof of an actual contract between them; for, if service is shown to have been rendered to the father, a contract will be inferred, and it matters not how trivial the service may have been. "Though it may have consisted but in pouring out his tea, he is entitled to his action." 73 Nor will recovery be denied.

Thompson, 2 Carr. & P. 303 (criticized in Knight v. Wilcox, 14 N. Y. 413, 417). Cf. LAWYER v. FRITCHER, 130 N. Y. 239, 29 N. E. 267, 14 L. R. A. 700, 27 Am. St. Rep. 521, Chapin Cas. Torts, 274. 67 See Boyle v. Brandon, 13 M. & W. 738.

es Knight v. Wilcox, 14 N. Y. 413.

69 Hewitt v. Prime, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 79, 81. In accord, Anderson v. Ryan, 3 Gilman (8 Ill.) 583; Barbour v. Stephenson (C. C.) 32 Fed. 66. Cf. Middleton v. Nichols, 62 N. J. Law, 636, 43 Atl. 575.

70 Simpson v. Grayson, 54 Ark. 404, 16 S. W. 4, 26 Am. St. Rep. 52; White v. Murtland, 71 Ill. 250, 22 Am. Rep. 100; Greenwood v. Greenwood, 28 Md. 370; Ellington v. Ellington, 47 Miss. 329; Furman v. Van Sise, 56 N. Y. 435, 15 Am. Rep. 441; Lavery v. Crooke, 52 Wis. 612, 9 N. W. 599, 38 Am. Rep. 768. Cf. Blanchard v. Ilsley, 120 Mass. 487, 21 Am. Rep. 535; Fitzgerald v. Connors, 88 Vt. 365, 92 Atl. 456.

71 Ball v. Bruce, 21 Ill. 161; LAWYER v. FRITCHER, 130 N. Y. 239, 29 N. E. 268, 14 L. R. A. 700, 27 Am. St. Rep. 521, Chapin Cas. Torts, 274.

72 Patterson v. Thompson, 24 Ark. 55; Beaudette v. Gagne, 87 Me. 534, 33 Atl. 23; Thompson v. Millar, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 448; Lee v. Hodges, 13 Grat. (54 Va.) 726; Hudkins v. Haskins, 22 W. Va. 645.

73 Briggs v. Evans, 27 N. C. 16, 20. In accord, Herring v. Jester, 2 Houst. (7 Del.) 66; Ball v. Bruce, 21 Ill. 161; Kendrick v. Mc

merely because she was temporarily absent from his home at the time when intercourse took place."4

75

As there can be no action for interference with parental rights, however accomplished, unless the father had at the time the power of controlling the child's services, proof of their loss or relinquishment by emancipation, express or implied, by apprenticing the child to another," or otherwise," will constitute a bar. Primarily the right of action is in the father,78 and only after his death is it in the mother. But where, because of her husband's desertion, she has in fact the sole custody and control of the child, she has been permitted to recover, though the father be liv

Crary, 11 Ga. 603; Badgley v. Decker, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 577; Villepigue v. Shular, 3 Strob. (34 S. C.) 462.

74 Lipe v. Eisenlerd, 32 N. Y. 229; Hudkins v. Haskins, 22 W. Va. 645.

75 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. De Atley, 151 Ky. 109, 151 S. W. 363 (personal injuries); McCarthy v. Boston & Lowell R. Corp., 148 Mass. 550, 20 N. E. 182, 2 L. R. A. 608 (personal injuries); Daly v. Everett Pulp & Paper Co., 31 Wash. 252, 71 Pac. 1014 (personal injuries); Ogborn v. Francis, 44 N. J. Law, 441, 43 Am. Rep. 394; Swift & Co. v. Johnson, 138 Fed. 867, 71 C. C. A. 619, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1161.

76 Dain v. Wycoff, 7 N. Y. 191 (seduction). Contra, where the defendant fraudulently procured the daughter to enter into his service. See supra, p. 469.

77 Roberts v. Connelly, 14 Ala. 235 (seduction); White v. Murtland, 71 Ill. 250, 22 Am. Rep. 100 (seduction); Wodell v. Coggeshall, 2 Metc. (Mass.) 89, 35 Am. Dec. 391 (enticement); McGarr v. National & Providence Worsted Mills, 24 R. I. 447, 53 Atl. 320, 60 L. R. A. 122, 96 Am. St. Rep. 749 (personal injuries).

78 King v. Southern Ry. Co., 126 Ga. 794, 55 S. E. 965, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 544 (personal injuries); Washburn v. Abrams, 122 Ky. 53, 90 S. W. 997 (abduction); Ackeret v. City of Minneapolis (1915) 129 Minn. 190, 151 N. W. 976, L. R. A. 1915D, 1111 (personal injuries); Keller v. City of St. Louis, 152 Mo. 596, 54 S. W. 438, 47 L. R. A. 391 (personal injuries); Scarlett v. Norwood, 115 N. C. 284, 20 S. E. 459 (seduction).

79 Washburn v. Abrams, 122 Ky. 53, 90 S. W. 997 (abduction); Horgan v. Pacific Mills, 158 Mass. 402, 33 N. E. 581, 35 Am. St. Rep. 504 (personal injuries); Franklin v. Butcher (1910) 144 Mo. App. 660, 129 S. W. 428 (smallpox communicated to child); Furman v. Van Sise, 56 N. Y. 435, 15 Am. Rep. 441 (seduction); Villepigue v. Shular,

ing.

If both parents are dead,81 or even though one 82 or both be living, a third party may stand in loco parentis, who may be in a position to sue.

Damages

"The theory of an injury to a master is pertinaciously retained as the essential basis of the father's action, but it is now little more than a legal fiction, used as a peg to hang a substantial award of damages upon as compensation, not to the master, but to the head of the family." 84 The plaintiff "comes into the court as a master; he goes before the jury as a father." 85 Hence he may not only recover for the loss of services, actual 86 or prospective,87 for expenses

3 Strob. (34 S. C.) 462 (seduction). Cf. Parker v. Meek, 3 Sneed (35 Tenn.) 29.

80 Malone v. Topfer, 125 Md. 157, 93 Atl. 397 (seduction); Tornroos v. R. H. White Co., 220 Mass. 336, 107 N. E. 1015 (personal injuries); Yost v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 163 Mich. 564, 128 N. W. 784, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 519, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 988 (personal injuries); Badgley v. Decker, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 577 (seduction); O'Brien v. City of Philadelphia, 215 Pa. 407, 64 Atl. 551 (personal injuries). Cf. McGarr v. National & Providence Worsted Mills, 24 R. I. 447, 53 Atl. 320, 60 L. R. A. 122, 96 Am. St. Rep. 749 (personal injuries).

81 Ball v. Bruce, 21 Ill. 161 (brother-in-law); Davidson v. Goodall, 18 N. H. 423 (cousin); Certwell v. Hoyt, 6 Hun (N. Y.) 575 (grandfather); Manvell v. Thomson, 2 Carr. & P. 303 (uncle).

82 Tittlebaum v. Boehmcke, 81 N. J. Law, 697, 80 Atl. 323, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1062, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 298 (husband of mother of illegitimate child); Maguinay v. Saudek, 5 Sneed (37 Tenn.) 146 (stepfather).

83 Clark v. Bayer, 32 Ohio St. 299, 30 Am. Rep. 593 (grandfather). Cf. Blanchard v. Ilsley, 120 Mass. 487, 21 Am. Rep. 535.

84 Simpson v. Grayson, 54 Ark. 404, 406, 16 S. W. 4, 26 Am. St. Rep. 52, per Cockrill, C. J.

85 Briggs v. Evans, 27 N. C. 16, 20, per Nash, J.

86 Travers v. Hartman (Del. 1914) 92 Atl. 855 (personal injuries); Bundy v. Dodson, 28 Ind. 295 (enticement); Koenke v. Bauer, 162 Mo. App. 718, 145 S. W. 506 (seduction); Tillmore v. Moore (D. C.) 4 Fed. 231 (detention).

87 Wennell v. Dowson, 88 Conn. 710, 92 Atl. 663 (personal injuries); Travers v. Hartman (Del. 1914) 92 Atl. 855 (personal injuries); Cuming v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 109 N. Y. 95, 16 N. E. 65; Id., 21 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 1 (personal injuries). But in an action for enticement the parent can only recover for loss of service up to the

necessarily incurred in the cure and care 88 and in recovering possession of the child,s but also for mental suffering,90 and, where a daughter has been seduced, for the dishonor and disgrace which he has endured. But there can be no recovery for mental distress suffered by the parent, where his action is based upon physical injuries to the child. It is regarded as too speculative and uncertain."2

time of the commencement of the action, or at most to the time of trial. Covert v. Gray, 34 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 450.

88 Travers v. Hartman (Del. 1914) 92 Atl. 855 (personal injuries); Dennis v. Clark, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 347, 48 Am. Dec. 671 (personal injuries); Comer v. Taylor, 82 Mo. 341 (seduction); Clark v. Bayer, 32 Ohio St. 299, 30 Am. Rep. 593 (abduction); Tillmore v. Moore (D. C.) 4 Fed. 231 (detention). But only expenses actually incurred or immediately necessary to be incurred. Cuming v. Brooklyn City R. Co. 109 N. Y. 95, 16 N. E. 65; Id., 21 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 1.

89 Rice v. Nickerson, 9 Allen (Mass.) 478, 85 Am. Dec. 777 (abduction); Clark v. Bayer, 32 Ohio St. 299, 30 Am. Rep. 593 (abduction). 90 Stowe v. Heywood, 7 Allen (89 Mass.) 118 (harboring); Russell v. Chambers, 31 Minn. 54, 16 N. W. 458 (seduction); Middletown v. Nichols, 62 N. J. Law, 636, 43 Atl. 575 (seduction); Rollins v. Chalmers, 51 Vt. 592 (seduction).

91 Herring v. Jester, 2 Houst. (Del.) 66; Cook v. Bartlett, 179 Mass. 576, 61 N. E. 266; Russell v. Chambers, 31 Minn. 54, 16 N. W. 458; Middleton v. Nichols, 62 N. J. Law, 636, 43 Atl. 575; Barbour v. Stephenson (C. C.) 32 Fed. 66.

92 Bube v. Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co., 140 Ala. 276, 37 South. 285, 103 Am. St. Rep. 33; Covington Street Ry. Co. v. Packer, 9 Bush (72 Ky.) 455, 15 Am. Rep. 725; Black v. Carrollton R. Co., 10 La. Ann. 33, 63 Am. Dec. 586; Harford County Com'rs v. Hamilton, 60 Md. 340, 45 Am. Rep. 739; Flemington v. Smithers, 2 C. & P. 292.

INJURIES TO THE MASTER

98. The liability of one who interferes to bring about the breach of a contract of employment is discussed

93

elsewhere. It need only be said here that the master may recover for loss of service against the seducer of the servant," against one whose act or neglect has caused physical injury to the latter,95 and against one who has unlawfully confined or imprisoned him. But the servant has no property in the master, and "is therefore entitled to no action for any battery or imprisonment which such master may happen to endure." "7

98 See page 444 et seq.

96

94 Harper v. Luffken, 7 B. & C. 387; McKenzie v. Hardinge, 23 Times L. R. 15. Cf. Ball v. Bruce, 21 Ill. 161.

95 Hodsoll v. Stallebrass, 11 Ad. & El. 301; Martinez v. Gerber, 10 L. J. C. P. 314. Loss of service, or impairment of capacity to render service, must be shown. Fluker v. Georgia R. & B. Co., 81 Ga. 461, 8 S. E. 529, 2 L. R. A. 843, 12 Am. St. Rep. 328; Voss v. Howard, Fed. Cas. No. 17,013.

96 Woodward v. Washburn, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 369. 97 Bl. Comm. book III, p. 143.