PETER VANVAKS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JAMES N. CHANTLY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the. same is hereby affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield and Brown, J.J., concur.
(Concurring). — A judgment for $25,000.00, in a suit brought by the husband for alienation of his wife’s ■affections, seems grossly excessive, when we have repeatedly cut down judgments here for loss of limb, and even of life itself, that have been much lower in amount. The ■fact that the case was tried before an able and long experienced trial judge, who refused to disturb the verdict, evidently because the evidence showed defendant’s criminal conversation with the unfaithful .wife in her husband’s own bed; an offense for which many men have been shot; instead of sued, is persuasive, so I concur.,
Davis, J.
(Concurring). — A judgment for $25,000.00, in a suit brought by the husband for alienation of his wife’s affections, seems grossly excessive, when we have repeatedly cut down judgments here for loss of limb, and even of life itself, that have been much lower in amount. The fact that the case was tried before an able and long experienced trial judge, who refused to disturb the verdict, evidently because the evidence showed defendant’s criminal conversation with the unfaithful .wife in her husband’s own bed; an offense for which many men have been shot; instead of sued, is persuasive, so I concur.,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)…ury from the evidence. Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363, text p. 371, 14 L. Ed. 181, text p. 185; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bizzell, 131 Ala. 429, 30 Sou. Rep. 777; Coleman v. Pepper, 159 Ala. 310, 49 Sou. Rep. 310. In Vanvaks v. Chantly, 107 Fla. 647, 145 Sou. Rep. 838, this Court sustained a $25,000.00 judgment for exemplary or [*328] punitive damages rendered in favor of a husband suing defendant for the latter’s alienation of his wife’s affections, where the pleadings and evidence showed aggravated circumstance…
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. McRoberts, 111 Fla. 278 (Fla. 1933)…nded for further proceedings to be had according to law. New trial awarded as to damages, and cause remanded for further proceedings, with directions. Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur. * Vamvaks v. Chantly, 107 Fla. 838, 145 Sou. Rep. 838, is a good illustration of the rule permitting punitive damages to be recovered in tort actions as a means of deterring wrongdoing. In that case, recovery of $25,000.00 damages for willful seduction of plaintiff’s wife was sustained on this theory.…
-
Mallory v. Edgar, 128 Fla. 812 (Fla. 1937)…son, it has been universally held that many of the excuses which will support a defense to an action for alienation of affections alone, will have no influence as a justification in a criminal conversation suit. In Vanvaks v. Chantly, 107 Fla. 647, 145 Sou. Rep. 838, Chantly sued Banvaks for alienation of his wife’s affections and for criminal conversation with .her. The judgment for $25,000.00 damages rendered the husband in that case was [*827] affirmed without serious debate among the Justices of this' Court…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence