
    Ruby May Farrell vs. Maria B. Farrell, et al.
    Aroostook.
    Opinion January 20, 1920.
    
      R. S., Chap. 66, Sec. 7, interpreted.
    
    The statutory right of action given under R. S., Chap. G6, Sec. 7, to a married woman, enabling her to sue a female person more than eighteen years of age for alienation of the affections of plaintiS’s husband, does not authorize such a suit against a male defendant for such alienation.
    Action by wife against father and mother of her husband, alleging alienation of his affections. The action was brought under R. S., Chap. 66, Sec. 7. The defendant, Elbridge G. Farrell, filed a petition to dismiss said action as to him, and the motion was sustained by presiding Justice; to which ruling, exceptions were filed. Exceptions overruled.
    Case stated in opinion.
    
      Joseph E. Hall, and Shaw & Thornton, for plaintiff.
    
      Pattangdll & Locke, and O. L-. Keyes, for defendants.
    Sitting: Spear, Hanson, Philbrook, Morrill, Deasy, JJ.
   Philbrook, J.

This is an action brought by a married woman against the father and mother of her husband alleging alienation of the affections of the husband. The father presented a motion to dismiss as to him on the ground that neither under authority of common law nor statute could such an action by a married woman be maintained against a male defendant. The motion was granted and exceptions were allowed to the plaintiff. The ruling was correct. R,. S., Chap. 66, Sec. 7. Prior to the enactment of this statute a married woman could not maintain such an action and it is only to the extent of enlarged powers and rights given by this statute that she may now bring her action against a female defendant. The statute being in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed.

Exceptions overruled.  