Ancrum v. Ancrum

• Decision Date: 11 July 1931
• Parties: ANCRUM v. ANCRUM.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

156 A. 22

ANCRUM

v. ANCRUM.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

July 11, 1931.

Syllabus by the Court.

In proceedings to annul a marriage, the equitable doctrine of "clean hands" and the rule of "pari delicto" become applicable.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where parties are in "pari delicto," equity will deny relief and leave the parties without remedy as against each other.

Suit by Carl K. Ancrum against Evelyn E. Ancrum for annulment of marriage. Proceedings dismissed.

Sandmeyer & Meisner, of Newark, for petitioner.

Charles Becker, of Newark, for defendant.

JACOB L. NEWMAN, A. M.

The petition in this case is filed to declare a marriage null and void on the ground that the defendant at the time of her marriage to the petitioner was already married to one Isaac Journeyman, who at the time of the petitioner's marriage to the defendant was living, and from whom the defendant had not been divorced. It appears from the evidence that on the 24th day of July, 1925, a marriage ceremony between the petitioner and the defendant was performed and that the petitioner did not then know that the defendant had a husband living from whom she had not been divorced.

If these facts standing alone were proved, I would have to advise a decree in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Tyll v. Keller, 94 N. J. Eq. 426, 120 A. 6; Vanaman v. Vanaman, 103 N. J. Eq. 400, 143 A. 558. But it appears by very clear and convincing evidence that some time during the year 1927 the petitioner learned of the fact of the prior marriage of the defendant to one Isaac Journeyman; that he made an investigation of the facts and satisfied himself of the invalidity of his marriage to the defendant and discussed the matter with Isaac Journeyman, who informed him of the prior marriage and gave him the place, date, and circumstances connected therewith. Upon learning these facts, the petitioner, after going to New Haven to procure the record of the prior marriage, then separated himself from the defendant for a period of about one month; but in the same year, 1927, he resumed marital relations with the defendant and continued to live with her "on and off," to use his own expression, until 1930. when the defendant started proceedings against him f or nonsupport, and he then separated himself from her and commenced these proceedings to annul the marriage.

The petitioner asserts that his reason, or rather excuse, for resuming marital relations with the defendant and continuing them for a period of three years, which of course were adulterous and criminal under the conditions then existing, was the fact that the defendant informed him that her marriage to Isaac Journeyman was invalid since Isaac Journeyman had another wife living at the time of his marriage to the defendant, and that she (the defendant) desired to submit proof of this fact to the petitioner. Upon her assertions and assurance that she would submit such proof (although this is emphatically denied by the defendant), the petitioner continued to live with her in this illegal and improper relationship for a period of nearly three years. I place very little credence upon this testimony respecting his reason for continuing this improper relationship.

Counsel for the defendant interposes a defense that amounts to a condonation. I might say here that the doctrine of condonation can have no application to this case as forgiveness cannot validate an illegal marriage. Millar v. Millar, 175 Cal. 797, 167 P. 394, L. R. A. 1918B, 415, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 184.

However, I am confronted with this question: Is the statute conferring upon the petitioner the right to the relief sought as a matter of strict legal right, mandatory, or may the court, in the exercise of its equitable powers, Inquire into the circumstances and deny the petitioner a decree where the petitioner does not come into court with clean hands?

I have spent considerable time trying to reconcile whether or not the doctrine of pari delicto or the equitable maxim, "He who comes into Equity must come with clean hands," applies in annulment cases. This is because public policy is involved and the state is an interested party to litigation of this character. I have been referred to the case of Davis v. Green, 91 N. J. Eq. 17, 108 A. 772, which in effect holds that these doctrines do not apply in annulment cases of this kind. However, the Court of Appeals later in the case of Tyll v. Keller, 94 N. J. Eq. 426, 120 A. 6, and ...