Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

a chose which should be vested in possession, and contains all the elements of a private wrong. Breaches of contract are as numerous in kind as the contracts, which may be violated thereby. Any contract is broken by the failure of either party to do, or to refrain from doing, the thing which he agreed to do or not do, in the manner, time, and place, in which it was agreed to be done or not done. Such failure is itself, in the eye of the law, a wrongful act, unless excused or justified by the conduct of the other party, and from such wrongful act the law implies damage.

Read 3 Bl. Comm., p. 153.

1 Hill. Torts, Ch. i, §§ 1 note a, 2.

1 Addison Torts, §§ 27, 28.
Cooley Torts, pp. 2, 90, 91.

§ 229. Of Fraud.

The law presumes that the parties to every contract deal fairly and honestly with each other, and authorizes each of the parties to assume such fairness and honesty on the part of the other. Whenever, therefore, one of the parties wilfully deceives and thereby damages the other, a wrong is committed additional to, and distinct from, the breach of that contract, in which such fairness was presumed. This wrong is called fraud, and consists in any false representation, by word or act, made knowingly by one party to a contract, with intent to mislead the other party to such contract in some matter connected therewith, and resulting in actual damage to such other party.

Read 3 Bl. Comm., pp. 163-166.

2 Hill. Torts, Ch. xxvi.

2 Addison Torts, §§ 1174-1199, 1202–1210.
Cooley Torts, pp. 473-507.

Bigelow L. C. Torts, pp. 1-72.

$230. Of Conspiracy.

Where two or more persons conspire together to do an unlawful act, and do such act in pursuance of such conspiracy, and to the damage of the party conspired against, such conspiracy itself becomes a wrong additional to, and independent of, the particular injury sustained by the unlawful act, and renders all parties to such conspiracy liable therefor.

Read 2 Hill. Torts, Ch. xxxiii, §§ 16-19 b.
2 Addison Torts, § 850.

Cooley Torts, pp. 124-127, 279–282.
Bigelow L. C. Torts, pp. 207-216.

CHAPTER III.

OF WRONGS WHICH VIOLATE RELATIVE RIGHTS.

§ 231. Of Wrongs Committed against each other by the Parties to a Relation.

Wrongs, which violate relative rights, are such acts or omissions, of persons outside of a relation, as disturb the superior in such relation, in the enjoyment of those rights which, by virtue of that relation, he has in the inferior. The wrongs, by which the parties to a relation may violate the reciprocal rights of each other, are included in the wrongs against absolute rights. Thus if one party to a relation abuse, or unlawfully confine, the other, it is a wrong against the right of personal security or personal liberty; and, in the eye of the law, is an injury of the same nature as if committed against a person outside of such relation. So if one party to a relation withhold from the other some duty or service, which, by virtue of such relation, should be rendered to that other, the law, so far as it takes notice of such withholding, regards it as a breach of contract, and a violation of the right of private property. The wrongs which violate relative, as distinguished from absolute, rights, are, therefore, those committed by persons outside of the relation from which such rights arise.

Read 3 Bl. Comm., pp. 138, 142.

2 Addison Torts, §§ 1233-1261.
Cooley Torts, pp. 227, 228, 241, 549.
Reeve Dom. Rel., pp. 65, 288.

§ 232. Of Wrongs Committed by Third Persons against the Parties to a Relation.

Wrongs, which violate relative rights, are also wrongs which violate the right of the superior in a relation, as distinguished from the inferior. An inferior in a relation (as a wife, child, ward, or servant) has, by the common law, no rights in the superior which can be violated by third persons; and though a husband, parent, guardian, or master be prevented, by third persons, from fulfilling the duties of his relation, yet the other party to such relation sustains, at the hands of such third persons, no legal wrong. On the other hand, if the inferior in a relation be prevented, by a third person, from fulfilling his or her duties, the superior in such relation does sustain a legal wrong, at the hands of that third person, and such wrongs are therefore said to violate relative rights.

Read 3 Bl. Comm., pp. 142, 143.

Cooley Torts, pp. 222, 223, 235.

§ 233. Of the Abduction of a Wife.

The wrongs, which violate the rights of a husband to the obedience and services of his wife, are three: Abduction; Criminal Conversation; and Battery. Abduction is the unlawful taking or detention of a married woman from her husband. The taking or detention may be either by fraud, by persuasion, by violence, or even by harboring the wife against the will of her husband; and it is unlawful in all cases when not done in obedience to legal process, or in the necessary protection of the wife from the abuse of her husband.

Read 3 Bl. Comm., p. 139.

2 Hill. Torts, Ch. xlii, § 23.
2 Addison Torts, § 1271.
Cooley Torts, p. 225.

Bigelow L. C. Torts, pp. 328-337.

Schouler Dom. Rel., pp. 57-59.

§ 234. Of Criminal Conversation.

Criminal conversation is the carnal knowledge of a married woman, to the damage of her husband. In this wrong, as in abduction, the law presumes the injury to have been accomplished by violence, since the wife has no legal power to consent thereto. If the husband consents to the intercourse he sustains no wrong, and such consent may be presumed if he suffers his wife to live as a prostitute. So if they be separated, by agreement, he sustains no injury, for the legal rights, which are violated by this wrong, have been relinquished by him.

Read 3 Bl. Comm., pp. 139, 140.

2 Hill. Torts, Ch. xlii, §§ 17-22.
Cooley Torts, pp. 224, 225.
Bigelow L. C. Torts, pp. 337-340.
Reeve Dom. Rel., p. 64.
Schouler Dom. Rel., p. 109.

§ 235. Of the Battery of a Wife.

Battery is the unlawful exercise of violence toward the person of a married woman, to the damage of her husband. Any threat or violence, offered to a wife, is a violation of her right of personal security, and renders the wrong-doer liable to her. If such violence so far injure her as to deprive her husband of her society or services, it becomes a violation of his rights in her, and renders the wrong-doer liable to him.

Read 3 Bl. Comm., p. 140.

2 Hill. Torts, Ch. xlii, §§ 1-3.
Cooley Torts, p. 226.

Reeve Dom. Rel., p. 63.

Schouler Dom. Rel., pp. 108, 109.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »