Definition
Criminal conversation (abbreviated crim. con.) is a common law tort action brought by a husband against a man who has had sexual intercourse with the husband's wife without the husband's consent. The action is grounded in the legal fiction that a wife was, for civil purposes, a form of property or chattel of her husband, and that adultery by a third party constituted a trespass upon that proprietary interest. Damages were recoverable at law, and the action was entirely independent of any divorce or ecclesiastical proceeding.
Criminal conversation required proof of only two elements: a valid marriage and an act of sexual intercourse between the defendant and the plaintiff's wife. The wife's consent — or lack thereof — was irrelevant to the husband's claim against the third party. Intent and aggravating circumstances could affect damages but did not go to liability.
The action is now abolished in most common law jurisdictions and survives in only a small number of U.S. states.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Criminal conversation" does not appear as a standard entry in modern general dictionaries. When encountered in lay writing, it is typically treated as an archaic or euphemistic phrase for adultery.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's 1913 defines criminal conversation as "adultery; — usually abbreviated crim. con."
The gap is significant. In ordinary language, the phrase was simply a polite circumlocution for adultery, carrying no technical content. In law, it described a specific civil tort with defined elements, its own rules of pleading and damages, and a procedural life entirely separate from criminal law. The word "criminal" in the phrase is a historical misnomer — the action was never a crime in the modern sense. Researchers encountering the abbreviation "crim. con." in older pleadings or treatises should understand they are reading about a civil action for damages, not a criminal prosecution.
---
Common Confusion
Criminal conversation is frequently confused with alienation of affections. They are related but distinct causes of action. Criminal conversation requires proof of an actual act of adultery; alienation of affections does not — it targets any conduct that destroys marital affection and companionship, which may or may not include a sexual relationship. A plaintiff could bring both actions arising from the same facts, and many historical cases did so. In modern jurisdictions that have abolished one or both torts, the distinction determines whether any claim survives at all. Additionally, the phrase "criminal conversation" misleads modern readers into assuming a criminal proceeding — no conviction, indictment, or prosecution is involved.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Criminal conversation is a term with an extremely long active history (spanning roughly the seventeenth through early twentieth centuries in American and English law) followed by near-total abolition. Researchers working in historical primary sources — particularly nineteenth-century case reporters, equity pleadings, and domestic relations treatises — will encounter crim. con. frequently. Several navigational points:
First, the abbreviation "crim. con." appears without definition in older reporters and legal newspapers. Do not assume it refers to criminal law. It is invariably this civil tort.
Second, the action's abolition occurred at different times in different American states. Some states abolished it by statute in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century as part of married women's property act reform; others retained it well into the twentieth century. A handful of states retain it today. Locating abolition dates requires jurisdiction-specific statutory research.
Third, because the action rested on the husband's quasi-proprietary interest in his wife's person, it was unavailable to wives seeking damages for a husband's adultery. This asymmetry is legally and historically significant and directly reflects the coverture framework. Researchers examining women's legal history should note that the gradual erosion of crim. con. tracks closely with the erosion of coverture more broadly.
Fourth, damages in crim. con. actions were often enormous and highly publicized, making historical newspaper archives a useful supplemental source for understanding the practical life of the doctrine.
Fifth, do not conflate this tort with alienation of affections when searching Law Mind corpus materials — the two actions appear together in many treatises but have separate doctrinal genealogies.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence define criminal conversation as "the act of adultery; — sometimes abbreviated crim. con. It is the act of cohabiting with a married person." They frame it as a tortious injury to the husband, treated in the law analogously to trespass. The definition is economical but accurate as far as it goes.
What Rapalje & Lawrence do not address, and what modern researchers need to supply from context, is the doctrinal structure underlying the action: the relationship between crim. con. and alienation of affections, the evidentiary rules governing proof of the sexual act (which were often relaxed relative to other civil actions), and the debates over the action's abolition that were already well underway by the 1880s. Historical dictionaries of this period treat the term as settled law precisely at the moment when legislative reform was beginning to unsettle it.
The action's roots are traceable to English common law, where it developed as a secular alternative to ecclesiastical proceedings for adultery. By the time American jurisdictions were consolidating their common law, crim. con. was a recognized and frequently litigated action in most states, though its theoretical justifications were increasingly under strain. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England treats related marital property concepts in the chapter on husband and wife, providing useful background even though Blackstone does not isolate crim. con. as a discrete entry.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Criminal conversation has been abolished by statute in most U.S. states and in England (abolished by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 and its successor legislation). A small number of American states — including North Carolina — retained the action into the twenty-first century. Researchers should not assume abolition without checking the specific jurisdiction and time period at issue. Conflict of laws questions arise when the conduct occurred in a state that recognizes the tort and the forum state does not.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
No Law Mind Encyclopedia entry directly covers criminal conversation as a domestic relations tort. The following entries address related concepts:
- Intentional Torts — Property and Economic — Conversion (The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia): useful for understanding the proprietary logic underlying common law tort actions on which crim. con. drew, though that entry concerns conversion of property rather than marital torts.
Researchers should also consult Law Mind Encyclopedia materials on coverture and married women's property rights when examining the doctrinal foundations of this action.
---