Davis v. Condit
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1924, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sawyer v. Bailey (Me. 1980)
- Nelson Ex Rel. Nelson v. Melvin (Iowa 1945)
- Clarahan v. Cosper (Wash. 1931)
- Bacon v. St. Paul Union Stockyards Co. (Minn. 1924)
- Stiffler v. Boehm (New York Supreme Court 1924)
- Maxwell v. Eastman (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1933)
- Conway v. O'Brien (Mass. 1929)
- Lowenstein v. McGowan (Washington County Court of Common Pleas 1923)
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
Appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
The complaint alleges that the defendant maliciously debauched and seduced the affianced wife of the plaintiff, and alienated her affections, and maliciously interfered with the marriage contract then subsisting, causing him properly to break it.
The common law gives the affianced husband no cause of action for the seduction of his affianced wife and no statute gives one. See Case v. Smith, 107 Mich. 416, 65 N. W. 279, 31 L.R.A. 282.
The right to recover for alienation of affections or for criminal
The plaintiff claims that the act of the defendant was a malicious interference with the marriage contract between himself and his fiancee. In Joyce v. Great Northern R. Co. 100 Minn. 225, 229, 110 N. W. 975, it is held that a wrongful and malicious interference by a stranger with the contract relations of others, by causing one to commit a breach, is an actionable tort. The breach of contract in the case at bar was by the plaintiff, not by his affianced wife. Because of her unchastity he was justified in breaking the contract; but we are unable to hold that the situation of the parties is such that the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant for bringing, about her unchastity, though he acted maliciously.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.