mnnanorr v. Mnnnnorr. 13
as to whether it will or not recognize the binding forceofthe statute
against a road in the hands of its receivers, I have no doubt but
that it is its duty to recognize it as binding, and adjust the compen-
sation accordingly. The exceptions to the report of the master will .
be sustained, and the petition for rehearing denied.
Mnunnorr v. Mnnnnoss and others}
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Kansas. January 2, 1886.)
1. ·HUSBAND nm Wnrn-—Ao·r1oN nr Winn Fon Anrmruvrmo HUSBAND’B Ammo-
TIONS—COMP. Laws KAN, c. 62, §§ 1-4. “
A married woman, in Kansas, can maintain an action in her own name for
the alienation of the affections of her husband, and depriving her of his soci-
ety, care, and support. · ·
2. SAME—PLEADLNG—COMPLAINT—DEMURRER. ;
In an action by a wife to recover damages for the alienation of her hus-
band’s affections, a complaint alleging that defendants began systematically
to poison and prejudice the mind of her husband by telling him false stories
about her, and charging her with unwillingness and inability to do house-
work, and by treating her with gross disrespectin his presence, and finally
by falsely and maliciously charging her in his presence with having commit-
ted adultery, is not suiiicient, except as to the allegation as to the charge of
adultery, and as to that it should be made more specinc by stating the time
and place where the words were spoken, and what words were use .
At Law. The opinion states the facts. _~
Day cf Dodge and Maher et Osmond, for plaintiff.
H. D. McMullen and Diefenbackcr at Bama, for defendants. s
Fosrnn., J. The plaintiff sues to recover damages for an alleged
violation of her marital rights, in this, to-wit: that the defendants,
who are the father and mother of William Mehrhoff, her husband, con-
spired to separate the plaintiff and her said husband, and to deprive
the plaintiff of the care and society of her said husband, and alienate
his affections from her; that, to accomplish the said purposes,the de-
fendants began systematically to poison and prejudice the mind of
her husband against her by telling him false stories about the plain-
tiff, charging her with unwillingness and inability to do housework,
and by treating plaintiff in her husband’s presence with gross disre-
spect, and nnally by falsely and maliciously charging the plaintiff, in
her husband’s presence, with having committed adu1tery,—by reason
whereof, the affections of the plaintiffs husband were alienated from
. her, and caused him to treat her badly, and with such cruelty that
she was compelled to take her infant child and flee from her husbandfs.
domicile in the night-time, and that he hascompletely abandoned
her and said child; that he has no property out of which she could
·‘ I Reported by Robertson Howard, Esq., of the St. Paul bar. ” U Z