Ellington v. Ellington

Citations

• 47 Miss. 329

Syllabus

<p>1. Seduction — action per quod servitum amisit. — There was no express action given for the wrong done a parent for the seduction of his child; and therefore a special action on the case has been allowed by the courts, founded, on a legal fiction, for a “loss of services,” but in reality to punish the seducer in damages, for the dishonor and distress which the outrage brings upon the parent; and a similar action is allowed to the master of a servant, if debauched or beaten, for any special damages thereby actually occasioned.</p> <p>2. General principles and distinctions. — Distinctions arising from age or nonage of daughter, her apprenticeship to the defendant or to another, or her .absence from her father’s service and control, with or without his consent, death of the father pending or before suit, etc., and general principles applicable thereto, considered and authorities cited.</p> <p>3. Improved theories op the law. — In spite of the difBculty with which the judicial mind can ever emancipate itself from forms sanctioned by age and long experience, it is manifest that courts cannot stand still in the jnareh of improvement; the idea that a parent’s right of action for the defilement of his child rests only upon a supposed loss, by a master, of the services of a seryant, originating, as it did, in a rude age, has gradually given away to more enlightened and refined theories.</p> <p>4. Modern principle. — 3?or the defilement of a minor daughter, a parent may recover, as a parent, damages for the outrage, dishonor and injury thereby inflicted upon the child, parent and family, upon the principle that it is the duty of the parent to protect the person and morals of his child and of his family.</p>