« AnteriorContinuar »
+ Ch. 654, 38 L. J. Ch. N. S. 665, 21 L. T.Terminal R. Asso. 224 U. S. 383, 56 L. ed. V. S. 188; Metropolitan Electric Supply 810, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 507; United Shoe Co. v. Ginder [1901) 2 Ch. 799, 70 L. J: Machinery Co. v. Brunet  A. C. 330, Ch. N. S. 862, 65 J. P. 519, 49 Week. Rep. 78 L. J. P. C. N. S. 101, 100 L. T. N. S. 508, 84 L. T. N. S. 818, 17 Times L. R. 435; 578, 25 Times L. R. 442, 53 Sol. Jo. 396; Ferris v. American Brewing Co. 155 Ind. Cooke, Combinations, § 116; Uni Shoe 539, 52 L.R.A. 305, 58 N. E. 701; Wester- Machinery Co. v. La Chapelle, 212 Mass. relt v. National Paper & Supply Co. 154 467, 99 N. E, 289, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 715; Ind. 673, 57 N. E. 552; Southern Fire Brick Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 & Clay Co. v. Garden City Sand Co. 223 Ill. U. S. 1, 55 L. ed. 619, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 834, 616, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 446, 79 N. E. 313, 731 Sup. Ct. Rep. 502, Ann. Cas. 1912D, Ann. Cas. 50; Brown v, Rounsavell, 78 Ill. ; 734; Sperry & H. Co. v. O'Neill-Adams Co. 589; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Rogers, 42 107 C. C. A. 337, 185 Fed. 231; Hoben v. N. J. Eq. 311, 11 Atl. 13; Salomon v. Hertz, Dempsey, 217 Mass. 166, L.R.A. 1915A, 40 N. J. Eq. 400, 2 Atl. 379; Standard 1217, 104 N. E. 717; Pickett v. Walsh, 192 Fashion Co. v. Siegel Cooper Co. 157 N. Y. Mass. 572, 6 L.R.A. (...S.) 1067, 116 Am. St. 66, 43 L.R.A. 854, 68 Am. St. Rep. 749, 51 Rep. 272, 78 N. E. 753, 7 Ann. Cas. 638; V. E. 408; Matthews v. Associated Press, Allen v. Flood (1898) A. C. 1, 62 J. P. 136 N. Y. 333, 32 Am. St. Rep. 741, 32 N. E. 595, 67 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 119, 77 L. T. 981; Clark v. Crosby, 37 Vt. 188; Twomey N. S. 717, 14 Times L. R. 125, 46 Week. v. People's Ice Co. 66 Cal. 233, 5 Pac. 158; Rep. 258; Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Sutton v. Head, 86 Ky. 156, 9 Am. St. Rep. Louis Voight & Sons Co. 212 U. S. 227, 261, 274, 5 S. W. 410; Heaton Peninsular But- 53 L. ed. 486, 505, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 280; ton-Fastener Co. v. Dick, 55 Fed. 23; James Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U. S. 134, 206, 49 T. Hair Co. v. Huckins, 5 C. C. A. 522, 12 L. ed. 154, 160, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 3; Com. U. S. App. 359, 56 Fed. 366; Chicago, St. v. Hunt, 4 Met. 111, 38 Am. Dec. 346; L. & N. 0. R. Co. v. Pullman Southern Snow v. Wheeler, 113 Mass. 179; Carew Car Co. 139 U. S. 79, 35 L. ed. 97, 11 Sup. v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1, 8 Am. Rep. Ct. Rep. 490; John Bros. Abergarw Brew. 287; Aberthaw Constr. Co. v. Cameron, 194 ery Co. v. Holmes  1 Ch. 188, 69 Mass. 208, 120 Am. St. Rep. 542, 80 V. E. L. J. Ch. N. S. 148, 64 J. P. 152, 48 Week. 478. Rep. 236, 81 L. T. N. S. 771; Com. v. Sis- Mr. Walter B. Grant for defendant Murson, 178 Mass. 578, 60 N. E. 385; O'Keeffe phy. v. Somerville, 190 Mass. 110, 112 Am. St. Messrs. W. M. Richardson and John R. Rep. 316, 76 N. E. 457, 5 Ann. Cas. 684; Lazenby, for defendant Stamp Company: Gagnon v. Sperry & H. Co. 206 Mass. 547, The petitioner's contract is illegal as be. 92 N. E. 761; Opinion of Justices, 208 ing a contract in restraint of trade. Mass. 607, 94 N. E. 848.
United Shoe Machinery Co. v. La ChaThis contract of the Merchants' Legal pelle, 212 Mass. 467, 99 N. E. 289, Ann. Stamp Company is not a violation of any Cas. 1913D, 715; New York Bank Note Massachusetts statute.
Co. v. Kidder Press Mfg. Co. 192 Mass. Com. v. Strauss, 188 Mass. 229, 74 N. E. 391, 78 N. E. 463; Anchor Electric Co. v. 308, 191 Mass. 545, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 968, Iawkes, 171 Mass. 101, 41 L.R.A. 189, 68 78 N. E. 136, 6 Ann. Cas. 842; Butterick Am. St. Rep. 403, 50 N. E. 509; Gamewell Pub. Co. v. Fisher, 203 Mass. 122, 133 Am. Fire Alarm Teleg. Co. v. Crane, 160 Mass. St. Rep. 283, 89 N. E. 189; John D. Park 50, 22 L.R.A. 673, 39 Am. St. Rep. 458, & Sons v. Hartman, 12 L.R.A. ( V.S.) 135, 35 N. E. 98; Plant v. Woods, 176 Mass. 492, 82 C. C. A. 158, 153 Fed. 24; Com. v. 51 L.R.A. 33!), 79 Am. St. Rep. 330, 57 Sisson, 178 Mass. 578, 60 N. E. 385; N. E. 1011; Berry v. Donovan, 188 Mass. O'Keeffe v. Somerville, 190 Mass. 110, 112 353, 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 899, 108 Am. St. Rep. Am. St. Rep. 316, 76 N. E. 457, 5 Ann. Cas. 499, 74 N. E. 603, 3 Ann. Cas. 738; Reyn684; Somerby v. Buntin, 118 Mass. 279, 19 olds v. Davis, 198 Mass. 294, 17 L.R.A. Am. Rep. 459; Opinion of Justices, 196 Mass. 603, 85 N. E. 545; Little v. Tanner, 208 Mass. 336, 35 L.R.A.(N.S.) 787, 94
(N.S.) 162, 84 N. E. 457; Folsom v. Lewis, 208 Fed. 605.
The Merchants’ Legal Stamp Company N. E. 316; Hanson v. Innis, 211 Mass. 301, by its contracts with the merchants has not 97 N. E. 756; Pickett v. Walsh, 192 Mass. created a monopoly in violation of the com- 572, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1067, 116 Am. St. Rep. mon law.
272, 78 V. E. 753, 7 Ann. Cas. 638; Burn National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas, 197 | ham v. Dowd, 217 Mass. 351, 51 L.R.A. U'. S. 115, 129, 49 L. ed. 689, 694, 25 Sup. (N.S.) 778, 104 N. E. 841; Cummings v. Ct. Rep. 379; United States v. American Union Blue Stone Co. 164 N. Y. 401, 52 Tobacco Co. 221 C. S. 106, 55 L. ed. 663, L.R.A. 262, 79 Am. St. Rep. 655, 58 N. E. 31 Sup. Ct. Kep. 632; United States V. 525; People v. Sheldon, 139 N. Y. 251, 23 L.R.A. 221, 36 Am, St. Rep. 690, 34 N. E., stamps with an agreement by the author785.
ized merchant or customer not to part with Even if the contract is not void, either them except in the specified course of at common law or under the statutes, the trade, and to return the book with the petitioner nevertheless is not entitled to the stamps attached, which may have been prerelief asked for, which is based upon the sented to him by purchasers. If this is dealings of the respondents with the col. not done all rights under the contract lectors of stamps.
cease or are forfeited. We said in O'Keeffe Waltham Watch Co. v. Keene, 202 Fed. v. Somerville, 190 Mass. 110, 112 Am. St. 225; Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Rep. 316, 76 N. E. 457, 5 Ann, Cas. 684, Park & Sons Co. 220 V. S. 373, 405, 55 that trading stamps not being a commodity L. ed. 502, 517, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376; within the meaning of our Constitution, Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U. S. 339, they were not subject to an excise tax, 52 L. ed. 1086, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722, 139 although no attempt was made to classify Fed. 155; Taddy v. Sterious (1904] 1 Ch. them. Nor is it necessary now to deter354, 3 B. R. C. 286, 73 L. J. Ch. N. S. mine whether the contract is strictly a 191, 52 Week. Rep. 152, 89 L. T. N. S. 628, bailment (Hunt v. Wyman, 100 Mass. 198; 20 Times L. R. 102; McGruther v. Pitcher Springfield Engine Stop Co. v. Sharp, 184  2 Ch. 306, 3 B. R. C. 292, 73 L. J. Mass. 266, 68 N. E. 224; Isaacs v. MacCh. N. S. 653, 20 Times L. R. 652, 53 Week. Donald, 214 Mass. 487, 102 N. E. 81), or Rep. 138, 91 L. T. N. S. 678: C'om. v. Emer- whether the stamps are choses in action, son, 165 Mass. 147, 42 N. E. 55); Com. v. (Sperry & H. Co. v. Hertzberg, 69 N. J. Sisson, 178 Mass. 578, 60 N. E. 385; Eq. 264, 60 Atl. 368). The transaction is O'Keeffe v. Somerville, 190 Mass. 110, 112 to be determined from its inherent charAm. St. Rep. 316, 76 N. E. 457, 5 Ann. acter or purpose. If not goods, wares, or Cas. 684; Garst v. Hall & L. Co. 179 Mass. merchandise as those terms ordinarily are 588, 55 L.R.A. 631, 61 N. E. 219; John D. used, or the title did not vest in the purPark & Sons Co. v. Hartman, 12 L.R.A. chaser, but he had only a limited use, they (N.S.) 135, 82 C. C. A. 158, 153 Fed. 24. do represent and were intended to represent
a mode of doing business which under modBraley, J., delivered the opinion of the ern mercantile conditions is in itself a court:
business potentially affecting and largely The principal, if not the sole, business of controlling certain well recognized lines of the plaintiff is the issuing of trading trade. The books and stamps, when viewed stamps to merchants at a fixed price, who in the light of their manufacture and use give them to their customers for cash pur- by the plaintiff, coupled with its contract chases usually on the basis of one stamp treating them not as symbols, but as chatfor every 10 cents of the price of the article tels of value, which are the subject of sale bought, and after a number of stamps have or of bailment, are to be deemed articles been thus collected the merchant or col- within the meaning of the Statute of 1908, lector presents them to the plaintiff for chap. 454, § 1. It is expressly found that redemption at a fixed rate. By this ar- the plaintiff declines to supply stamps to rangement the stamp or coupon operates merchants unless they stipulate not to use as a discount in cash for every purchase trading stamps issued by other companies made. Com. v. Sisson, 178 Mass. 578, 60 or individuals, and that the insertion of N. E. 385. The books containing the con- this provision in the contract is to suptract are described by the master as ruled press all competition. The direct tendency off into spaces similar to stamp albums, of the plaintiff's system of business under into which the collectors, who are also the all the findings results in such concentrapurchasers, paste the nps, and the tion as to substantially control prices for plaintiff redeems them at a lower price; a form of service, or of supposed profits to the difference
the company's purchasers, demanded by the public. Com. profits. It is plain that the plaintiff is v. Strauss, 188 Mass. 229, 231, 74 N. E. a trading stamp company, giving pre- 308. The scheme the plaintiff has so caremiums or valuable consideration for fully elaborated and built up is in reality a stamps furnished to purchasers of goods devise whose predominant purpose, as shown as an inducement for payment in cash. The by its practical and successful operation, master's report shows that under the oper- tends to drive all competitors from the field. ation of this system the plaintiff controls | New York Bank Note Co. v. Kidder Press nearly 90 per cent of the actual business Mfg. Co. 192 Mass. 391, 403, 78 N. E. 463 ; conducted in this form by the merchants of United Shoe Machinery Co. v. La Chapelle, boston and vicinity. By the provisions of 212 Mass. 467, 480, 99 N. E. 289, Ann the contract designed for this territory, | Cas. 1913D, 715. The monopoly it seeks the company retains title to the book and to establish may not be complete, but it has
gone far enough to eliminate any effective dition alleged to be due to negligent inrivalry. The restriction is not confined juries, but which might have resulted from to the sale or transfer to a business rival another cause, plaintiff has the burden of of the plaintiff, but the merchant or col- showing that it is more probable that the lector cannot dispose of book or stamps to condition was due to the negligent act than
to the other alleged cause. anyone, even if their retention unused must
Damages loss of consortium. result in pecuniary loss. Indeed, this is an essential and controlling feature of the con- married woman's' act,
2. A man cannot, since the passage of the
recover damages tract, which differs materially from the con against one who has negligently injured his tract in Gagnon v. Sperry & H. Co. 206 wife, for loss of consortium. Mass. 547, 92 N. E. 761. While we do not go so far as to say that trading stamps
(March 17, 1915.) are an absolute public necessity, yet they enter into the merchant's business, and are
PPEAL by defendant from a judgment
A an essential element of a form of bargain
of the Circuit Court for Bay County and sale which a very appreciable portion in plaintiff's favor in an action brought to of the public demands.
recover damages for personal injuries to Beechley v. Mulville, 102 Iowa, 602, 63 his wife which were alleged to have been Am. St. Rep. 479, 70 N. W. 107, 71 N. w. caused by defendant's negligence. Reversed. 428. The direct and intended effect of the methods employed being to restrain or pre
Statement by Ostrander, J.: vent the pursuit by the defendants or of It is the claim of plaintiff that because others of a similar enterprise in a lawful of the negligence of defendant his wife susmanner, the plaintiff is within the pro- tained personal injuries. He sued to rehibition of the Statute of 1908, chap. 454, cover damages for his resulting injury. In § 1, which declares that such an arrange- his declaration he describes her injuries as ment or agreement, whatever form it may “injuries to her back, spine, digestive orassume, or however carefully the constitu- gans, intestines, kidneys, and bladder, and ent parts may be assembled, is "against to her uterus and its organs, resulting in public policy and illegal and void.” The ex- appendicitis and a displacement of such ceptions to the report not having been argued uterus and its said organs, all occasioning need not be considered, and the master hav- nervousness, sleeplessness, loss of consciousing found that the defendants have not ness, and sexual power, dizziness, and faintes to the plaintiff's customers used or pro
ing spells.” pose to use any information obtained from As a result, he says: "Plaintiff has been it while the defendant Murphy was in its compelled to lay out and expend large sums employment, the defendants are not shown of money for medical and surgical care and to have violated any enforceable rights of attention, medicine, care, and nursing in an the plaintiff. Stat. 1908, chap. 454, § 2. endeavor to cure her of such injuries, hinWhite v. Buss, 3 Cush. 448; Gibney v. drance, and incapacity, and to restore such Olivette, 196 Mass. 294, 295, 82 N. E. sexual power and consortium, and it will 41; Kennedy v. Welch, 196 Mass. 592, 83 always continue to be necessary for him to N. E. 11. The decree dismissing the bill expend large sums of money for medical and is therefore affirmed with costs.
surgical treatment, care, and nursing that would have been wholly unnecessary to expend had she not received said injuries and
been hindered and incapacitated as aforeMICHIGAN SUPREME COURT.
said, and by reason of such injuries he has
lost the value of her earning capacity, EDMUND BLAIR
ices, and consortium, and the large
which she otherwise would have been able SEITNER DRY GOODS COMPANY, Appt. to earn for and save to him in and about
her duties, as such housekeeper, and in and (- Mich. –, 151 N. W. 724.)
about similar labor, and in the future he Evidence - burden of proof
will continue to lose large sums from her
- cause of physical condition.
said earning capacity being so impaired and 1. To hold one liable for a physical con- I by reason thereof and the several losses so Note. — Right of husband to recover for other L.R.A. notes on several analogous
loss of consortium through personal questions are referred to. injury to wife,
As to husband's right to recover for loss
of consortium where injury results in death, The earlier decisions on this question are sce note to Rogers v. Fancy Farm Teleph. considered in a note to Marri v. Stamford Co. L.R.A. Street R. Co. 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1042, where In Reeves v. Lutz, 179 Mo. App. 61, 162
sustained by him, including the value of she sustained, and connected with the last, such services and consortium.”
her previous physical condition. These Testimony introduced the part of issues, and others concerning the result to plaintiff tended to prove that upon an occa plaintiff, were submitted to a jury, and a sion in April, 1912, when his wife, accom- verdict for $1,550.40 was returned. Judgpanied by two daughters, was shopping in ment was entered on the verdict, and a new defendant's tore, they undertook to use trial was refused. the elevator, in stepping into which, at the invitation of an employee, she fell because Over objection that it did not tend to the floor of the elevator was below the level establish a basis for estimating plaintiff's of the floor of the store, a condition of damages, the plaintiff's wife was permitted things which on account of semidarkness in to testify as follows: the elevator and the invitation aforesaid Q. Prior to your injury what was your she did not discover. Issues of fact were relation with your husband with reference raised by the testimony about the negli- to the relation between a wife and husband gence of defendant, the negligence of the on occasions ? wife, the nature and effects of the injuries A. I was perfectly well on that occasion. S. W. 280, the court said: “The husband's | It is certain that the husband is entitled to right of consortium at common law included recover for the loss of the services of his the right of the services of the wife to be wife of which he is deprived by the neglirendered to the husband, together with the gent act of another, even though the parright of her society and the comfort inci- ties are in such circumstances that she is dent to the association and her companion- not accustomed or desired to do physical ship. Such are the rights which, it is as- | labor, or the husband may not have realized serted here, defendant has invaded and of anything from her services before she was which plaintiff has been deprived by his injured. See 4 Sutherland, Damages, 3d ed. wrongful act. See Stout v. Kansas City $ 1252. Therefore, the courts declare, in Terminal R. Co. 172 Mo. App. 113, 157 S. the cases of the character of this one, that W. 1019; Marri v. Stamford Street R. Co. there need be no direct or express evidence 84 Conn. 9, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1042, 78 Atl. of the value of the wife's services either by 582, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1120. In such cases the day, week, month, or of any other period it would be difficult, indeed, to ascertain in of time, or of any aggregate sum touching dollars and cents the value of the consor- the matter, for it is sufficient to show her tium of either spouse to the other. The re- disability from performing service if it were lation and the right are rather of a sacred desired, or she chose to do so. It is said character than of a valuable monetary in- when the loss of a wife's services resulting terest or right. In this view, our supreme from a personal injury is to be compensated court has determined that it is not essential for to her husband, she is not to be treated to introduce evidence tending to prove the as an ordinary servant or as a mere hirevalue of the society and companionship of ling. On the contrary, she is to be regardthe wife. Obviously the principle support- ed as sustaining to her husband and his ing this view goes to the effec that the household a relation special and peculiar in law never requires pecuniary proof with ref- itself, for the deprivation of which, even erence to a non pecuniary loss. Such is the for a short time, compensation for services thought of an eminent author on the sub- may not be accurately ascertained and given ject. See Watson on Damages, p. 403. in evidence in dollars and cents. Therefore Therefore, in a suit by the husband for the the actual facts and circumstances of each loss of the wife's companionship and society case, together with the experience and judgas a result of personal injuries sustained by ment of the jurors, are to furnish the guide her through the negligence of another, there in determining the amount of the recovery, need be no direct proof of the value of such and this, too, without evidence of value.” society, comfort, and companionship. The And in Indianapolis & M. Rapid Transit very nature of the subject does not admit Co. v. Reeder, 51 Ind. App. 533, 100 N. E. of such proof. This being true, the assess- 101, it was said: "Under the law the pement of reasonable compensation therefor cuniary value of the 'wifely services or conmust, it is said, necessarily be committed sortium' of decedent during the period into the sound discretion and judgment of the tervening between her injury and her death triers of the fact. See Furnish v. Missouri was a part of the damages to be ascertained P. R. Co. 102 Mo. 669, 22 Am. St. Rep. 800, and assessed. See (opinion on former ap15 S. W. 315: Watson, Damages, pp. 403, peal], 42 Ind. App. 520, 85 N. E. 1042, and 404: 4 Sutherland, Damages, 3d ed. $ 1252. cases there cited. These services may, and As the right to the society, comfort, and often do, inelude such services as might be companionship of the wife is but parcel of rendered by hired servants, which have a the common-law right of consortium, it fixed or market value; but they also inwould seem the same rule should apply to clude such services as a wife alone can the loss of her services as well: for, indeed, render the husband, viz., such as she may after all, the right to the society and com- extend to him by way of her society and panionship is included within that of the counsel, her pervading superintendence and husband to the wife's unimpaired services. care over his household, her nurture, guidQ. Had there ever been anything that in- Other medical testimony upon the subject terfered physically with the acts of inter. was admitted, and the plaintiff on direct course between a wife and husband ? examination gave the following: A. No, sir.
Q. Is the companionability, the sociability in your home the same now that it
was before her injury? A physician was permitted over objec- A. No, sir, it is not. It is less. tion to answer this question:
On cross-examination, he testified: Q. During that time, what was her ca
Your pacity as to discharging the functions of wife is there all the time as before?
Q. What do you mean by less ? a wife so far as intercourse with a husband
A. She is there, yes. is concerned ?
Q. Then why is her companionship less A. I would not think that would be pos- than it was before, if she is there with you sible.
as much as ever; you can talk and visit ance, and training of his children; and his common-law right to recover for her these services are not the subject of market services and companionship from injuries value, but their value must depend on what sustained by her from the negligent act of the evidence shows to have been the home another, wliere death did not ensue. Little life and its surroundings and conditions, Rock Gas & Fuel Co. v. Coppedge, supra. and the part the wife had to do with its The word “consortium" includes aid, somaking and keeping, in each case. See 42 ciety, companionship, assistance, and affecInd. App. supra, and cases cited. See also tion, and the law does not attempt to sepaSelleck v. Janesville (1899) 104 Wis. 570, rate these elements of damages; so it was 47 L.R.A. 691, 76 Am. St. Rep. 892, 80 N. held in Little Rock Gas & Fuel Co. v. CoppW. 944, and cases cited. The disposition, edge, supra, where the husband spent more temperament, character, and attainments of than $1,400 for medical services for his wife the wife, her interest manifested in her after she was injured, that a verdict for home and family and in the comfort, happi. $7,500 damages was not excessive. ness, education, and general welfare of the Gregory v. Oakland Motor Car Co. members of the family, and many other ele. Mich. 147 N. W. 614, was an action of ments, if developed by the evidence, may be trespass on the case "to recover damages taken into account; and, finally, on a con- against the defendant
for expenses sideration of all the elements entering into incurred by him for medical attendance upsuch services, their value must be expressed on, and for loss of the services, comfort, felin dollars and cents. The best method of lowship, and society of, his wife, by reason ascertaining such values known to the law of the negligence of an employee of the deis to obtain the consensus of opinion oi fendant;' and but for what is said concerntwelve jurors; and it is only where the ing it in BLAIR V. SEITNER Dry Goods Co. record discloses that in arriving at such might be regarded as some authority contra value such jurors took into account some to the rule announced in that case, which, item or element not authorized by the law, it seems, is against the weight of authority. or that their judgment had been improperly But the doubt expressed in the earlier influenced or obtained, that the appellate note as to the law in Massachusetts on this tribunal should by a remittitur substitute question has been settled in Whitcomb v. its judgment for theirs. No such showing New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 215 Mass. 440, is made by the record in this case.” In this 102 N. E. 663, following Bolger v. Boston case the wife finally went insane, and a Elev. R. Co. 205 Mass. 420, 91 N. E. 389, verdict for $4,200 was sustained.
holding that when a married woman has reAnd May v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 157 covered full compensation from a railroad N, C. 416, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 912, 72 S. E. company in an action for personal injuries, 1059, holds that a man may recover dam- her husband is not entitled to recover for ages from one who trespasses upon his prop. loss of consortium. erty and frightens his wife to her injury, Where a wife's libel against a steamship for the expenses imposed upon him and the company for personal injuries falls, her hus. deprivation of society and services of the band cannot maintain a libel for expenses wife because of the trespass.
on account of the wife's injuries and for The rule announced in the earlier note on loss of consortium. Savage v. New York, this question, to the effect that in the ma- N. & H. S. S. Co. 107 C. C. A. 648, 185 Fed. jority of jurisdictions the married women's 778. acts have not changed the common-law right And see Garrison v. Sun Printing & Pub. of the husband to recover for loss of con- Asso. 207 N. Y. 1, 45 L.R.A.(V.S.) 766, sortium, is sustained by Little Rock Gas 100 N. E. 430, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 288, hold& Fuel Co. v. Coppedge, Ark. 172 S. ing that a man may recover for loss of W. 885.
| society and services of his wife resulting And § 6287 of Kirby's Digest, giving a from mental distress caused by the wilful husband the right recover for the ser- and malicious publication conce her of vices and society of his wife where death defamatory words actionable per se. resulted to her by wrongful act or negli
W. W. A. gence of another person, did not take away