Summary
In McMillan v. Taylor, 1946, 81 U.S. App.D.C. 322, 160 F.2d 221, we held that an action such as this is not recognized in the law.
Summary of this case from Edler v. MacAlpine-DownieOpinion
No. 9254.
December 2, 1946.
Action by Vergil D. McMillan, as father and next friend of his two infant children, Ola-May McMillan and Leon McMillan, against Francis W. Taylor and others, for damages for allegedly enticing Mary Lois McMillan away from her husband, Vergil D. McMillan, and destroying the home and depriving the children of the comfort, love, and affection of their mother. From a judgment of dismissal, the plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Mr. Vergil D. McMillan, pro se.
Mr. Francis W. Taylor, pro se.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and WILBUR K. MILLER, Associate Justices.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court dismissing appellants' complaint. The action was begun by plaintiff as father and next friend of his two infant children. So far as it has any form at all, it may be said to follow that of an action by husband or wife for alienation of affections, and is one of half a dozen actions growing out of the marital difficulties of plaintiff and his wife. Taylor, appellee, was the wife's attorney in some of those actions and and their offshoots.
The lower court dismissed on the ground that such a cause of action is not recognized in the law.
This we think is correct and, accordingly, we affirm. See Morrow v. Yannantuono, 152 Misc. 134, 273 N.Y.S. 912; and see also our memo. of July 31, 1946, 160 F.2d 217, on another phase of this action.
Affirmed.