Opinion
October 13, 1891.
A woman cannot maintain an action against her seducer to recover damages for the seduction.
In a case where the only good count of the declaration was for breach of promise of marriage, the writ was served by arrest, but contained no affidavit.
Held, that the action rested on contract and that the service of the writ was invalid.
TRESPASS ON THE CASE. On demurrer to the declaration.
The writ in this case ordered the arrest of the defendant, describes the action as "case for seduction and breach of promise of marriage," was served by arrest of the defendant, and contained no affidavit.
Providence, October 13, 1891.
Hugh J. Carroll Thomas J. McParlin, for plaintiff.
Albert R. Greene, for defendant.
The court is of the opinion that all the counts in the declaration except that entitled "additional count" are to be regarded as counts for seduction, the promises of marriage being introduced merely in aggravation. To these counts the demurrer is sustained. The plaintiff cannot allege her own criminal misconduct as a ground of action. Paul v. Frazier, 3 Mass. 71; Hamilton v. Lomax, 26 Barb. S.C. 615.
The "additional count" is a count for a breach of promise of marriage, but the service of the writ being by arrest, and there being no such affidavit as is required by statute to justify a service by arrest in an action ex contractu, the service is invalid, and the action must therefore be dismissed. Malone v. Ryan, 14 R.I. 614.