Tinker v. Colwell/Opinion of the Court
In M'Clure v. Miller, 11 N. C. (4 Hawks) 133, note, page 140, trespass was held to be the proper form of action in such a case, and that a single act of adultery, though never manifested in its consequences, is an invasion of the husband's rights, and the law redresses it. It is also said that the husband has, so to speak, a property in the body and a right to the personal enjoyment of his wife. For the invasion of this right the law permits him to sue as husband.

For the purpose of maintaining the action, it is regarded as an actual trespass upon the marital rights of the husband, although the consequent injury is really to the husband on account of the corruption of the body and mind of the wife, and it is in this view (that it is a trespass upon the rights of the husband) that it is held that the consent of the wife makes no difference; that she is incapable of giving a consent to an injury to the husband. 7 Mod. 78.

In Wales v. Miner, 89 Ind. 118, decided in 1883, it was held that in an action of crim. con. the wife was incapable of consenting to her own seduction so as to bar her husband's right of action.

In Bigaouette v. Paulet, 134 Mass. 123, 45 Am. Rep. 307, it was held the action could be maintained whether the conversation was with or without the consent of the wife, and although the act caused no actual loss of the services of the wife to the husband.

Many of the cases hold that the essential injury to the husband consists in the defilement of the marriage bed, in the invasion of his exclusive right to marital intercourse with his wife and to beget his own children. This is a right of the highest kind, upon the thorough maintenance of which the whole social order rests, and in order to the maintenance of the action it may properly be described as a property right.

In Delamater v. Russell, 4 How. Pr. 234, it was held that the act complained of (criminal conversation) was an injury to the person of the plaintiff; that it was an invasion of his personal rights, and although the action was brought for depriving the plaintiff of the comfort, society, fellowship, aid, and assistance of the wife, yet it was an action brought for an injury to, and an invasion of, the plaintiff's personal rights.

The plaintiff in error refers to the case of Cregin v. Brooklyn Crosstown R. Co. 75 N. Y. 192, 31 Am. Rep. 459, same case upon second appeal, 83 N. Y. 595, 38 Am. Rep. 474, for the purpose of showing that the right to the society of the wife is not property, and therefore cannot be regarded as within the words of the bankruptcy act. The case does not decide that the right to the wife's society and comfort is not a property right on the part of the husband. It was a case brought by the husband against the railroad company for injuries negligently inflicted on the person of his wife by the company, and after the action was brought the husband died, and an application was made to revive the action in the name of the administrator of the husband. The court held that the action survived under the provisions of the state statute. 2 Rev. Stat. 447, § 1. The case then went to trial and the judge submitted to the jury the question of damages arising for the loss of the services of the wife and of her society, and it was held to be error by the court of appeals, because, while the right to the services of the wife was property, the right to her society, etc., was not property within the meaning of the statute providing for the survival of the cause of action, for the reason that the statute only provided for the survival of those rights the loss of which diminished the estate of the deceased; that the loss of the services of the wife did diminish the estate of the deceased, but that the loss to the husband of the wife's society and aid, etc., did not diminish his estate, and therefore the right of action consequent thereon did not survive the deceased. The question in the case at bar neither arose nor was referred to in the opinions delivered in that case.

We think it is made clear by these references to a few of the many cases on this subject that the cause of action by the husband is based upon the idea that the act of the defendant is a violation of the marital rights of the husband in the person of his wife, to the exclusion of all others, and so the act of the defendant is an injury to the person and also to the property rights of the husband.

We think such an act is also a wilful and malicious injury to the person or property of the husband, within the meaning of the exception in the statute.

There may be cases where the act has been performed without any particular malice towards the husband, but we are of opinion that, within the meaning of the exception, it is not necessary that there should be this particular, and, so to speak, personal malevolence toward the husband, but that the act itself necessarily implies that degree of malice which is sufficient to bring the case within the exception stated in the statute. The act is wilful, of course, in the sense that it is intentional and voluntary, and we think that it is also malicious within the meaning of the statute.

In order to come within that meaning as a judgment for a wilful and malicious injury to person or property, it is not necessary that the cause of action be based upon special malice, so that without it the action could not be maintained.

In Bromage v. Prosser, 4 Barn. & C. 247, which was an action of slander, Mr. Justice Bayley, among other things, said:

'Malice, in common acceptation, means ill will against a person; but in its legal sense it means a wrongful act, done intentionally, without just cause or excuse. If I give a perfect stranger a blow likely to produce death, I do it of malice, because I do it intentionally and without just cause or excuse. If I maim cattle, without knowing whose they are, if I poison a fishery, without knowing the owner, I do it of malice, because it is a wrongful act, and done intentionally. If I am arraigned of felony, and wilfully stand mute, I am said to do it of malice, because it is intentional and without just cause or excuse. If I traduce a man, whether I know him or not and whether I intend to do him an injury or not, I apprehend the law considers it as done of malice, because it is wrongful and intentional. It equally works an injury, whether I meant to produce an injury or not. . . .'

We cite the case as good definition of the legal meaning of the word malice. The law will, as we think, imply that degree of malice in an act of the nature under consideration, which is sufficient to bring it within the exception mentioned.

In Re Freche (U.S. district court, district of New Jersey, 1901) 109 Fed. 620, it was held that a judgment for the father in an action to recover damages for the seduction of his daughter was for a wilful and malicious injury to the person and property of another, within the meaning of § 17 of the bankrupt act, and was not released by a discharge in bankruptcy. Kirkpatrick, District Judge, in the course of his opinion, said:

'From the nature of the case, the act of the defendant Freche which caused the injury was wilful, because it was voluntary. That act was unlawful, wrongful, and tortious, and, being wilfully done, it was, in law, malicious. It was malicious because the injurious consequences which followed the wrongful act were those which might naturally be expected to result from it, and which the defendant Freche must be presumed to have had in mind when he committed the offense. 'Malice,' in law, simply means a depraved inclination on the part of a person to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by his injurious acts. While it may be true that in his unlawful act Freche was not actuated by hatred or revenge or passion towards the plaintiff, nevertheless, if he acted wantonly against what any man of reasonable intelligence must have known to be contrary to his duty, and purposely prejudicial and injurious to another, the law will imply malice.'

In Leicester v. Hoadley, supreme court of Kansas, 1903, 66 Kan. 172, 71 Pac. 318, it was held that a judgment obtained by a wife against another woman for damages sustained by the wife by reason of the alienation of the affections of her husband is not released by the discharge of the judgment debtor under proceedings in bankruptcy, where such alienation has been accomplished by schemes and devices of the judgment debtor, and resulted in the loss of support and impairment of health to the wife.

It was further held that injuries so inflicted are wilful and malicious, and are to the person and property of another, within the meaning of § 17 of the United States bankrupt law.

In United States v. Reed, 86 Fed. 308, it was held that malice consisted in the wilful doing of an act which the person doing it knows is liable to injure another, regardless of the consequences; and a malignant spirit or a specific intention to hurt a particular person is not an essential element. Upon that principle, we think a wilful disregard of what one knows to be his duty, an act which is against good morals, and wrongful in and of itself, and which necessarily causes injury and is done intentionally, may be said to be done wilfully and maliciously, so as to come within the exception.

It is urged that the malice referred to in the exception is malice towards the individual personally, such as is meant, for instance, in a statute for maliciously injuring or destroying property, or for malicious mischief, where mere intentional injury without special malice towards the individual has been held by some courts not to be sufficient. Com. v. Williams, 110 Mass. 401.

We are not inclined to place such a narrow construction upon the language of the exception. We do not think the language used was intended to limit the exception in any such way. It was an honest debtor, and not a malicious wrongdoer, that was to be discharged.

Howland v. Carson, 28 Ohio St. 628, is cited by plaintiff in error. The question arose under the old bankruptcy act, which provided (U.S. Rev. Stat. 5117) that no debt created by fraud or embezzlement of the bankrupt, or by his defalcation as a public officer, or while acting in a fiduciary character, should be discharged by proceedings in bankruptcy, etc. It was held in the case cited that a judgment for the seduction of his daughter in favor of the father, where the seduction was not induced or accomplished under a promise of marriage fraudulently made for the purpose, was not a debt created by fraud, within the meaning of the bankruptcy act. We do not perceive the least similarity in the case to the one now before the court, nor could we say that such a debt was one created by fraud.

It is also argued that, as the fraud referred to in the exception is not one which the law implies, but is a particular fraud involving moral turpitude or intentional wrongdoing, so the malice referred to is not a malice implied in law, but a positive and special malice upon which the cause of action is founded, and without proof of which the action could not be maintained. It is true that the fraud mentioned in the bankruptcy statute of 1867 [14 Stat. at L. 517, chap. 176] has been held to be a fraud involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong, and did not extend to a mere fraud implied by law.  Hennequin v. Clews, 111 U.S. 676, 681, 28 L. ed. 565, 567, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 576; Forsyth v. Vehmeyer, 177 U.S. 177, 44 L. ed. 723, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 623. The reason given was that the word was used in the statute in association with a debt created by embezzlement, and such association was held to require the conclusion that the fraud referred to meant positive fraud, or fraud in fact, involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong, and not a fraud which the law might imply and which might exist without the imputation of bad faith or immorality.

Assuming that the same holding would be made in regard to the fraud mentioned in the present act, it is clear that the cases are unlike. The implied fraud which the court in the above-cited cases released was of such a nature that it did not impute either bad faith or immorality to the debtor, while in a judgment founded upon a cause of action such as the one before us, the malice which is implied is of that very kind which does involve moral turpitude. This case is not, therefore, controlled in principle by the above-cited cases.

People ex rel. Livergood v. Greer, 43 Ill. 213, is also cited. The court there did hold that, under the Illinois insolvent law, an insolvent debtor was discharged from a judgment obtained by the father for the seduction of his daughter. The law discharging the debt extended by its terms to all tort feasors except where malice was the gist of the action, and the court said malice was not the gist of the action in question. The case is not opposed to the views we have already expressed.

It is not necessary in the construction we give to the language of the exception in the statute to hold that every wilful act which is wrong implies malice. One who negligently drives through a crowded thoroughfare and negligently runs over an individual would not, as we suppose, be within the exception. True, he drives negligently, and that is a wrongful act, but he does not intentionally drive over the individual. If he intentionally did drive over him, it would certainly be malicious. It might be conceded that the language of the exception could be so construed as to make the exception refer only to those injuries to person or property which were accompanied by particular malice, or, in other words, a malevolent purpose towards the injured person, and where the action could only be maintained upon proof of the existence of such malice. But we do not think the fair meaning of the statute would thereby be carried out. The judgment here mentioned comes, as we think, within the language of the statute, reasonably construed. The injury for which it was recovered is one of the grossest which can be inflicted upon the husband, and the person who perpetrates it knows it is an offense of the most aggravated character; that it is a wrong for which no adequate compensation can be made, and hence personal and particular malice towards the husband as an individual need not be shown, for the law implies that there must be malice in the very act itself, and we think Congress did not intend to permit such an injury to be released by a discharge in bankruptcy.

An action to redress a wrong of this character should not be taken out of the exception on any narrow and technical construction of the language of such exception.

For the reasons stated, we think the order of the Court of Appeals of New York must be affirmed.

Mr, Justice Brown, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Holmes dissent. 

Notes