
    Parker v. Elliotte.
    June, 1820.
    Seduction — 'Trespass—Case.—The plaintiff in an action for debauching- his daughter, may elect to bring trespass or case for the injury.
    Elliotte brought an action of trespass on the case, against Parker, of debauching his daughter. There was a demurrer to the declaration, because there was no positive averment of the injury, and because the action should have been trespass, and not case. The court below decided against the demurrer, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
    That the declaration containing no positive averment was fatal in this action on demurrer, was submitted on the authority of Moore v. Dawney. ()
    *That trespass and case should not be confounded, was attempted to be proved by the case of Taylor v. Rainbow. ()
    And that the proper action was trespass and not case, Woodward v. Walton, () was cited, and relied on as conclusive.
    
      
      Seduction — Action Ex Delicto. — Every action by a parent founded upon the seduction of his or her daughter must be an action ex delicto. Pry v. Leslie, 87 Va. 274,12 S. E. Rep. 671. citing the principal case. See also, foot-note to Clem v. Holmes, 33 Gratt. 722.
    
    
      
      (a) S Han. & M. 127.
    
    
      
      (b) 2 lien. & M.423.
    
    
      
      (c) Bos. & Pull. 476.
    
   ROANE, Judge.

The court is of opinion, that as this action is brought merely for debauching the appellee’s daughter, the injury arising from which, was as to the father, only consequential, he might elect to bring an action on the case for the said injury; and that there is no error in the judgment. It is therefore affirmed.  