ENTIC E. To solicit, persuade, or procure. Nash v. Douglass, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 187. The enticing desertions from the army or navy or arsenals of the United States is punishable by fine and imprisonment. R. S.
§ 1553, 1668, 5455, 5525.
A husband may recover compensation for enticing his wife away; French v. Deane, 19 Colo. 504, 36 Pac. 009, 24 L. R. A. 387 ; Tas ker v. Stanley, 153 Mass. 148, 26 N. E. 417, 10 L. R. A. 468. It is no defence to show that they had not lived happily together, though it may go in mitigation of damages; Hadley v. Heywood, 121 Mass. 236 ; Bailey v. Bailey, 94 Ia. 598, 63 N. W. 341. Stronger evidence is required where a parent har bors his daughter; it ought to appear that there were improper motives; Hutcheson V. Peck, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 196; Schoul. Husb. & W. § 64 ; Glass v. Bennett, 89 Tenn. 478, 14 S. W. 1085 ; White v. Ross, 47 Mich. 172, 10 N. W. 188. So of a wife's action against her husband's parents for enticing him away from her ; Reed v. Reed, 6 Ind. App. 317, 33 N. E. 638, 51 Am. St. Rep. 310 ; and probably of a brother's harboring his sister; Glass v. Bennett, 89 Tenn. 479, 14 S. W. 1085. It has been held that neither at common law nor under statutes giving a wife the right to sue has she a right of action for enticing away her husband; Duffles v. Duffles, 76 Wis. 374, 45 N. W. 522, 8 L. R. A. 420, 20 Am. St. Rep. 79; Doe v. Roe, 82 Me. 503, 20 Atl. 83, 8 L. R. A. 833, 17 Am. St. Rep. 499; Hester v. Hester, 88 Tenn. 270, 12 S. W. 446; but the weight of authority is that the ac tion will lie at common law ; Holmes v. Holm,es, 133 Ind. 386, 32 N: E. 932 ; Waldron v. Waldron, 45 Fed. 315; Hodgkinson v. Hodgkinson, 43 Neb. 269, 61 N. W. 577, 27 L. R. A. 120, 47 Am. St. Rep. 759 ; Bennett v. Bennett, 116 N. Y. 584, 23 N. E. 17, 6 L. R. A. 553 ; 9 II. L. Cas. 577. See Warren v. Warren, 89 Mich. 123, 50 N. W. 842, 14 L. R. A. 545. See ALIENATION OF AFFECTION.
A parent has a right of action against one who improperly entices his minor child away from him ; Grand Rapids & I. R. R. Co.
v. Showers, 71 Ind. 451; Caughey v. Smith, 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 351; L. R. 2 C. P. 615; in tort or assumpsit; Tiffany, Pers. & Dom. Rel. 284. The action is on the theory of loss of services, and the relation of master and servant, either actual or constructive, must be proven; id.; Magee v. Holland, 27 N. J. L. 86, 72 Am. Dec. 341.
A master has a right of action for know ingly enticing his servant ; 2 EL & Bl. 216: Bixby v. Dunlap, 56 N. H. 456, 22 Am. Rep. 475 and note; Jones v. Blocker, 43 Ga. 331; Duckett v. Pool, 33 S. C. 238, 11 S. E. 689; even though the contract of employment was one which the servant could terminate at will; Haskins v. Royster, 70 N. C. 601, 16 Am. Rep. 780 ; L. R. 2 C. P. 615; but not where it had expired by its own limitations; Boston Glass Manufactory v. Binney, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 425. The doctrine extends to all kinds of employs; Walker v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555 ; though it has been held to apply, at common law, oniy to domestic servants and apprentices ; Huff v. Watkins, 15 S. C. 82, 40 Am. Rep. 680.
Where one after notice continues to em ploy another's servant, the latter has a right of action, though at the time he hired him the second master did not know that he was hiring another man's servant ; Schoul. Dom. Rel. § 487 ; but in Lumley v. Gye, 2 El. & Bl. 216, which was an action for damages caused by the enticement of Wagner, a celebrated singer, from one theatre to another, the ma jority of the court thought the action would lie.
Enticement in some states renders one lia ble to criminal prosecution ; Bryan v. State, 44 Ga. 328 ; Roseberry v. State, 50 Ala. 160 ; State v. Daniel, 89 N. C. 553. See Chipley v. Atkinson, 23 Fla. 206, 1 South. 934, 11 Am. St. Rep. 367.