seduced and carnally knew, etc., and is good.10 In this action, damages for injury to the plaintiff's feelings and sensibility may be recovered under a general allegation of damage, and need not be specially averred.11 But damages for prospective loss of service during minority must be declared on specially.12 The gist of an action by a husband for enticing away his wife is the loss, without justifiable cause, of her comfort, society, and services; 13 and the plaintiff must give evidence, both that the loss was not occasioned by the voluntary act of the wife upon justifiable cause, and that it was occasioned by the defendant without any real cause, and in bad faith towards the plaintiff. By statutory provision in many of the States, an unmarried female may now prosecute as plaintiff an action for her own seduction; 15 and may recover damages for loss of health, and all other injuries consequent upon the act of seduction, except injury to or loss of character.16 The complaint in such action should affirmatively allege that at the time of the seduction charged the plaintiff was an unmarried female." And damages should be clearly alleged as the result or consequence of the seduction.18 A complaint which shows by its averments that the plaintiff was induced to yield her person to the defendant by the promise of a pecuniary consideration, which he has refused to perform, is bad on demurrer ; 19 such a contract being immoral and vicious is against public policy and void." The Statute of Limitations does not commence to run against the right of a minor to sue for her own seduction, until she attains her majority."

1 Hamilton v. Lomax, 6 Abb. Pr. 142; 26 Barb. 615; Galvin v. Crouch, 65 Ind. 56.

2 Shufelt v Rowley, 4 Cowen, 58; Gillet . Mead, 7 Wend. 193; Applegate . Ruble, 2 Marsh. A. K. 128; Briggs v. Evans, 5 Ired. 16; Abrahams v Kidney 104 Mass. 222.

3 Knight v. Wilcox, 14 N Y. 413; George . Van Horn, 9 Barb. 523; Kinuey v. Laughenour, 89 N. C. 365. The real gravamen of the

action is not the loss of service, but the mortification and disgrace of the family and the plaintiff's wounded feelings, and proof of the slightest degree of service is sufficient to establish the relation of master and servant between parent and child: Moran v. Dawes, 4 Cowen, 412; Badgley v. Decker, 44 Barb. 577; Ingerson v. Miller, 47 Barb. 47. And see Savery v. Crooke, 52 Wis. 612; 38 Am. Rep. 768; Davidson v. Abbott, 52 Vt. 510; 36 Am. Rep. 767.

4 Knight v. Wilcox, 14 N. Y. 413. And see White v. Nellis, 31 N. Y. 405. Neither pregnancy nor disease is essential to the maintenance of a parent's action for seduction: White v. Nellis, 31 N. Y. 405; Ingerson v. Miller, 47 Barb. 47; Leloup v. Eschausse, Ább. An. Dig. (1884) 293.

5 Clem v. Holmes, 33 Gratt. 722; Riddle v. McGinnis, 22 W. Va. 253. 6 Clark v. Boyer, 32 Ohio St. 299; Hewitt v. Prime, 21 Wend. 79; Mulvehall v. Millward, 11 N. Y. 343. In some States, loss of service as a foundation of the right of the parent to sue has been dispensed with: See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 375; Oreg. Code, 34; Mich. Comp. Laws, 6195; Ryan v. Fralick, 50 Mich. 483.

7 Parker v. Monteith, 7 Oreg. 277. And see Martinez v. Gerber, 3 Man. & G. 83.

8 Brown v. Kingsley, 38 Iowa, 220. The complaint may allege the time of the acts of connection, with a continuando, and evidence may be offered for any time covered by the complaint: Lemmon v. Moore, 94 Ind. 40.

9 Brown v. Kingsley, 38 Iowa, 220; Rees v. Cupp, 59 Ind, 566, 10 Witcell v. Blackford, 6 Baxt. 141.

11 Rollins v. Chalmers, 51 Vt. 592; Phillips . Hoyle, 4 Gray, 568; Irwin v. Dearman, 11 East, 22; Lunt v. Philbrick, 59 N. H. 59; Mellvain v. Emery, 88 Ind. 298.

12 Gilligan v. Railroad Co. 1 Smith, E. D. 453. A father cannot maintain an action for debauching his daughter, if he consented to or connived at her intercourse with the defendant: Smith v. Masten, 15 Wend. 270. But the consent or connivance of the plaintiff, being a complete bar to the action, must be pleaded as such: Travis v. Barger, 24 Barb. 614.

13 Barnes v. Allen, 1 Abb. Ct.App. 111.

14 Barnes v. Allen, 1 Abb. Ct. App. 111.

15 See Cal. Code Civ. Proc.

374; Gray v. Bean, 27 Iowa, 221; Thompson v. Young, 51 Ind. 599; Ryan v. Fralick, 50 Mich. 483; Watson v. Watson, 49 Mich. 540.

16 Smith v. Milburn, 17 Iowa, 30.

17 Thompson v. Young, 51 Ind. 599; Galvin v. Crouch, 65 Ind. 56; Dowling v. Crapo, 65 Ind. 209.

18 Gray v. Bean, 27 Iowa, 221.

19 Wilson v. Ensworth, 85 Ind. 399.

20 Wilson v. Ensworth, 85 Ind. 399; Johnson v. Holliday, 79 Ind. 151; Hogan v. Cregan, 6 Robt. 138.

21 Morrell v. Morgan, Sup. Ct. Cal. 3 West C. Rep. 683.

complaint

which

198. Sheriffs - Complaint. — A states that "the plaintiff is sheriff of the city and county of New York," sufficiently shows his official character,'

He need not set out the facts which show his election and qualification.2 In an action against a sheriff, where it is sought to establish a personal and not an official liability, it is not necessary to state the official character of the defendant in the complaint.3 In an action against him for an escape, the complaint must allege that the prisoner was "at large beyond the liberties of the jail," and it is not sufficient to aver that he was at large; * and the fact that the prisoner is indebted to the plaintiff must be distinctly alleged in the complaint in such action. But a complaint which avers that the defendant wrongfully permitted the debtor to escape is sufficient, where it appears that the debtor went beyond the liberties momentarily, and without the defendant's knowledge. In an action for not executing process, if the complaint states enough to show jurisdiction to issue process, and then alleges that the process was duly issued, it is sufficient without stating all the steps in the action. In an action for executing a process valid upon its face, issued out of a court having jurisdiction of the action and of the parties, a general allegation that the process was unlawful and void can have no greater force than a previous recital of the facts, which shows that it was authorized and valid, and a demurrer to such pleading in a complaint will be sustained. According to the decisions in some of the States, an action cannot be maintained against a sheriff for a failure to return an execution within the time allowed by statute, without alleging and proving that the plaintiff in execution was injured by the neglect, the extent of such injury being the measure of recovery; but in other States the plaintiff need not allege or prove special damages, and the sheriff may show in mitigation of damages that the defendant in the execution had no property upon which he could

have levied.10 In Indiana, a complaint which merely alleges the sheriff's failure to return the execution as the ground for damages, is sufficient to authorize the recovery of nominal damages only, as a greater recovery can be had only upon allegations of fact showing special damages.11 In an action upon a sheriff's bond, the complaint averred generally that the sheriff "wrongfully and unlawfully released his levy" upon the property, and in support of this averment, alleged no other facts than that he surrendered the property to the attachment defendant on receiving security in the form prescribed by statute, that said defendant and his surety converted the property, and that both of them are insolvent, and it was held that these facts were insufficient to show a breach of the sheriff's bond.12 A complaint in an action to recover damages for a trespass in levying void or irregular process need not aver malice or want of probable cause.' 13 Nor is it necessary to aver that a demand had been made upon the sheriff, before commencing an action against him for a failure to pay over the money collected on an execution.1 And if a sheriff, by virtue of an execution, seizes the property of a person other than the judgment debtor, whether by mistake or design, it is not necessary for the owner of the property thus seized to make a demand before commencing suit.15 But it is held, that a demand by a person authorized to make it must be averred and proved in an action against the sheriff and his sureties on the county-levy bond.16 A complaint in an action against a sheriff and his sureties for an alleged trespass of the sheriff should allege that the bond was the sheriff's official bond, and set out enough of its contents to show that those who signed it were bound to indemnify parties injured by the sheriff's malfeasance."

1 Kelly v. Breusing, 32 Barb. 601; 33 Barb. 123.

2 Kelly v Breusing. 33 Barb. 123,

3 Curtis v Fay, 37 Barb. 64; Hirsch v. Rand, 39 Cal 315; Wymond v. Amsbury. 2 Colo. 213; Stillman v. Squire, 1 Denio, 327.

4 Cosgrove v. Bowe, 2 N. Y. Civ. Proc. R. 61. See Renick ". Orser, 4 Bosw. 384; McCreary v. Willett, 4 Bosw. 643; 9 Bosw. 600; 23 low. Pr. 129.

5 Cosgrove v. Bowe, 2 N. Y. Civ. Proc. R. 61.

6 Dunford v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 445; 21 IIun, 349.

7 French v. Willett, 10 Abb. Pr. 99; Wehle v. Conner, 9 Jones & S. 201; First Nat. Bank v. Rogers, 13 Minn. 407.

8 Clark v. Bowe, 60 How. 98. The rule is, that a specific statement of facts will prevail against a general statement: Conaughty v. Nichols, 42 N. Y. 83; Lange v. Benedict, 73 N. Y. 12, 30.

9 Musser v. Maynard, 55 Iowa, 197; Nash v. Whitney, 39 Me. 341; Commonw. v. Lelav, 1 Phila. 333. Ánd see Dennis v. Whetham, Law R. 9 Q. B. 345.

10 Ledyard v. Jones, 7 N. Y. 550. And see Evans v. House, 26 Ohio St. 488; Moore v. Floyd, 4 Oreg. 101; Roth v. Duvall, 1 Idaho, 14); Clough v. Monroe, 34 N. IL. 381.

11 State v. Blanch, 70 Ind. 204. And see State v. Hammond, 72 Ind. 472.

12 Wheeler v. McDill, 51 Wis. 356. See { 127, ante.

13 Sprague v. Parsons, 14 Abb. N. C. 320. A process being void, the party who sets it in motion and all who aid him are trespassers: Wehler v. Haviland, 4 Daly, 550; 42 How. Pr. 399; Day v. Bach, 87 N. Y. 56.

14 Pope v. Hays, 1 Mo. 450; Dygert v. Crane, 1 Wend. 534. And see Grandstaff v. Ridgely, 33 Gratt. 1.

15 Ledley v. Hays, 1 Cal. 160; Boulware v. Craddock, 30 Cal. 190; Wellman v. English, 33 Cal. 583; Hicks v. Cleveland, 48 N. Y. 81; Kluender v. Lynch, 2 Abb. Ct. App. 538; Owings v. Frier, 2 Marsh. A. K. 268; Jamison v. Hendricks, 2 Blackf. 94. But see Vose v. Stickney, 8 Minn. 75; Barry v. McGrade, 14 Miun. 163; Butler v. White, 25 Minn, 432.

16 Commonw. v. Williams, 14 Bush, 207.

17 Ghiradelli v. Bourland, 32 Cal. 585.

199. Sheriffs - Answer. In an action against a sheriff for failing to levy upon property, it may be shown in defense that the property was exempt from levy and sale, but in order to avail as a defense, such exemption must be affirmatively shown.1 The answer should affirmatively show that the property was not greater in quantity or value than the exemption allowed by law. In an action against a sheriff for levying upon exempt property, if the defendant relies upon a waiver by the plaintiff of his right of exemption, he must plead BOONE PLEAD. -33.