HELEN B. HOOVER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ROSE ELLEN HOOVER, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, A. R. THORLEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case addresses whether a married woman (feme covert) has the right to sue for alienation of her husband's affections, and whether the trial court properly granted an instructed verdict in defendant's favor. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that married women do have such a right under modern Florida law, but the instructed verdict was properly granted based on the evidence presented.
The court held that a married woman does have the right to sue for alienation of affections under modern Florida law, which has relaxed the old common law doctrine of coverture. However, the trial court properly granted the instructed verdict because the evidence did not support a jury verdict in plaintiff's favor.
“The modern rule in almost every state in this country has relaxed the old common law doctrine of coverture and now accords the wife a right of action for the alienation of her husband's affections.”
Establishes the modern legal principle that married women have the right to sue for alienation of affections, departing from common law coverture doctrine.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHelen B. Hoover, a married woman, sued Rose Ellen Hoover for alienation of her husband's affections. At the conclusion of testimony, the trial court g…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Alienation Of Affections cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an action at law by Defendant in .Error, a feme covert, against the Plaintiff in Error for •the alienation of her husband’s affections. At the conclusion of the testimony, a motion for an instructed verdict in iavor. of the defendant was granted. Final judgment was *847accordingly entered and later motion for new trial was granted and the writ of error was taken to that order.
Two questions are brought here for our determination, viz., (1) ITas the Plaintiff, she being a feme covert, the right to maintain this action, and (2) Did the court below err in his order granting an instructed verdict for the defendant.
The modern rule in almost every state in this country has relaxed the old common law doctrine of coverture and now accords the wife a right' of action for the alienation of her husband’s affections. The rule has been extended both by Statute and rule of court. Sehouler on Marriages, Divorce, Separation, and Domestic Relations (Sixth Edition) Vol. 2, 1573 citing many cases, Cooley on Torts (Student’s Edition 1907) page 257, Par. 134. Foot vs. Card, 58 Conn. 1, 18 Atl. 1027, Gernerd vs. Gernerd, 185 Pa. St. 233, 39 Atl. 884.
This court is committed to the rule as thus announced. Sewell vs. Sewell, 91 Fla. 982, 109 So. 98. See also Carson’s Florida Common Law Pleading 152 and Crandall’s Florida Common Law Practice 167, to the same effect.
Section 2564 Revised General Statutes of 1920 (Sec. 4204 Compiled General Laws of 1927) provides that a married woman whose husband has become insane or has deserted her for a period of six months may prosecute or defend any action at law or in equity as if she were1 a feme sole and Section four of the Declaration of Rights (Florida Constitution) provides that all court's in this state shall be open so that every person for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation shall have remedy, by due course of law, and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, or delay.
In answer to the second question, it is sufficient to say that under the law of this state, Section 2696 Revised General Statutes of 1920 (Section 4363 Compiled General Laws of 1927) the judge presiding may on motion there*848for made at the conclusion of the testimony instruct a verdict for the opposite party if it appears from the evidence submitted that the jury could not legally find a verdict for one party. The evidence has been examined and it is not made to appear that the court below erred in granting a new trial.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Davis, J.J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Banfield v. Addison S. Addington and Daisy T. Addington, 104 Fla. 661 (Fla. 1932)…t itself has just recently declared itself in line with a judicial recognition of such changed conditions, statutory implications and necessary modifications as affecting the rights and liabilities of married women. See the case of Hoover v. Hoover, 103 Fla. 846, 138 Sou. Rep. 373, lately decided by this Court, where MR. JUSTICE TERRELL, in delivering the opinion of the Court, referred to the fact that “the modern rule in almost every State in this Country has relaxed the old common law doctrine of covertur…
-
Dorothea Alice Brandt v. Manuela de Mora Brandt, 138 Fla. 243 (Fla. 1939)…It is difficult to conceive of a set of facts more suitable to be controlled by Section 4204 C. G. L. than here established. We fail to find merit in the assignment. See Saunders Transfer Co. v. Underwood, 77 Fla. 167, 81 So. 105; Hoover v. Hoover, 103 Fla. 846, 138 So. 373. It is next contended that the lower court erred in its order made and entered at the conclusion of the taking of all the testimony in the cause when it overruled and denied .the motion for1 a directed verdict in behalf of the defendan…
Authorities Cited
- Sewell v. Sewell, 91 Fla. 982 (Fla. 1926)