Marshall v. Taylor
Citations
- 98 Cal. 55
- 32 P. 867
- 1893 Cal. LEXIS 861
Syllabus
<p>Seduction—Action for Damages—Sufficiency of°Evidenoe—Conflict—Testimony of Plaintiff.—In an action by an unmarried female to recover damages for her seduction by the defendant, evidence of the plaintiff that at the time of the alleged offense she was but sixteen years of age, and until that time was a chaste and virtuous girl; that she was at the time an employee of the defendant, who was then engaged in keeping a hotel; that she was stopping alone in a cottage near the hotel, where she was visited after dark by her employer, a man of wealth and years, with whom she was upon friendly terms; that after a conversation upon ordinary topics lasting some time, he gave her a glass of wine, which she drank, by which her mind was seriously affected, and she became unable to stand up alone without assistance, whereupon he placed his arms around her and assisted her to the bed, and after expressing affection for her, repeatedly caressing her and malting promises of future friendship and assistance, he had intercourse with her, is sufficient to sustain a verdict in her favor, though her testimony was contradicted in every essential point by the defendant’s evidence.</p> <p>Id.—Exemplary Damages—Rape—Consent—Aggravation of Injury.—It is immaterial in such case whether the plaintiff’s evidence indicated that she had. lost consciousness from the effect of the wine at the time the act was committed so that the defendant was guilty of rape, or that she was conscious at the time and consented thereto, as in either case the plaintiff is entitled to exemplaiy damages. Proof of rape, or the use of force, does not defeat the action for seduction, but only aggravates the injury.</p> <p>Id.—Definition of “Seduction.”—The word “seduction,” as used in section 374 of the Civil Code, providing that an unmarried female may prosecute an action for damages for her own seduction, means the use of some influence, promise, art, or means upon the part of the male, by which he induces the female t
Judges: Garoutte
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Carter v. MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1938-01-31· cited 28×
- People v. HaldeenCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1968-11-19· cited 16×
- Bishop v. WebsterSupreme Court of Virginia· 1930-06-12· cited 13×
- Booren v. McWilliamsNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1916-03-24· cited 10×
- Seamons v. SpackmanIdaho Supreme Court· 1959-07-06· cited 9×
- Hirschy v. CoodleyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1953-02-16· cited 9×
- Velthouse v. AlderinkMichigan Supreme Court· 1908-06-27· cited 8×
- State v. PriceSupreme Court of Iowa· 1912-11-20· cited 7×
- Verwers v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Iowa· 1914-06-19· cited 3×
- McAlpin v. GremmelsSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1921-08-15· cited 1×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.