Barngrover v. Pettigrew

• Decision Date: 17 October 1905
• Parties: BARNGROVER ET AL. v. PETTIGREW.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

128 Iowa 533

104 N.W. 904

BARNGROVER ET AL.

v.PETTIGREW.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 17, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Union County; H. M. Towner, Judge.

Suit at law to recover for services rendered in divorce proceedings between the defendant and his wife. The plaintiff Barngrover is an attorney and the plaintiff Hughes is a detective. They learned that Mrs. Pettigrew was about to commence an action for a divorce from the defendant, and so informed him, and before notice of suit was served entered into a written agreement with him, which is as follows: “The first party has employed second party to prepare evidence in, and try in the district court of Union county, Iowa, for first party, the suit entitled Jessie Pettigrew v. J. S. Pettigrew, in which said first party is defendant; and said second party undertakes to furnish proof, in the trial of said cause, of the plaintiff's infidelity to first party, and to secure him a divorce from his wife on his cross-petition to be filed in said suit; and as compensation for said services, first party agrees to pay second party as follows: Twenty-five dollars cash, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and then, when second party is successful in securing him a divorce from his wife on his cross-petition, or in case first party shall compromise said suit, or do any other act or thing to prevent second party from accomplishing said end, the further sum of $1,000. Said sums to be in full compensation for their services; and in case of the failure of said Barngrover and Hughes to obtain said divorce, except by reason of some act or thing done hereafter by the said Pettigrew, then the said second party will be entitled to receive only the said sum of $25 in hand paid; and it is further agreed that, in case the $1,000 is paid by first party to second party, then said second party will pay defendant's witness fees in said case, or depositions taken by him.” The petition set out this contract and asked a recovery thereon, and also asked a recovery on a quantum meruit, alleging, further, that the suit between the defendant and his wife had been compromised, and that she had been permitted to secure a divorce without opposition. The answer put in issue the legality of the agreement, and on the trial there was a directed verdict for the defendant after the close of the plaintiffs' evidence. The plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.J. E. Barngrover, for appellants.

T. L. Maxwell and D. W. Higbee, for appellee.

SHERWIN, C. J.

The clearly expressed object of the agreement was to bring about a dissolution of the marriage contract and to put an end to the various duties and obligations resulting from it. It is therefore against sound public policy and void. The marriage relation is sacred, and one which the law will encourage and maintain when formed. Its dissolution will not be...