Doe v. Roe
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Smith v. Womack (Tex. App. 1925)
- Root v. Root (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1940)
- Gessner v. Horne (N.D. 1911)
- Lonstorf v. Lonstorf (Wis. 1903)
- Warren v. Warren (Mich. 1891)
- Benjamin v. Cleburne Truck & Body Sales, Inc. (District Court, Virgin Islands 1976)
- Potter v. Schafter (Me. 1965)
- Karchner v. Mumie (Pa. 1959)
- Eliason v. Draper (Superior Court of Delaware 1910)
- King v. Hanson (N.D. 1904)
- Kroessin v. Keller (Minn. 1895)
- McCollister v. McCollister (Me. 1927)
- Sims v. Sims (N.J. 1910)
- Wolf v. Frank (Md. 1900)
- Knapp v. Wing (Vt. 1900)
- Humphrey v. Pope (Cal. 1898)
- Gernerd v. Gernerd (Pa. 1898)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This is an action by a married woman against another woman. The plaintiff has alleged in her declaration that the defendant debauched and carnally knew her husband, thereby alienating his affection and depriving her of his comfort, society, and support.
The question is whether such an action is maintainable. For such a wrong the law does not leave the injured wife without redress. She may obtain a divorce and a restoration of all her property, real and personal, and in addition thereto, alimony or an allowance out of her husband’s estate. And the law will punish the guilty parties criminally. But does the law, in addition to these remedies, secure to her a right of action to recover a pecuniary compensation from her husbaiid’s paramour? We think not. We have been referred to no reliable authority for the existence of such a right, and we can find none.
It is true that a husband may maintain an action for the seduction of his wife. But such an action has grounds on which to rest that can not be invoked in support of a similar action in favor of the wife. A wife’s infidelity may impose upon her husband the support of another man’s child. And what is still worse, it may throw suspicion upon the legitimacy of his own
.iExceptions overruled.
Demurrer sustained.
Declaration adjudged had.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.