Boehs v. Hanger
| Decision Date | 07 February 1905 |
| Citation | 69 N.J.E. 10,59 A. 904 |
| Parties | BOEHS v. HANGER. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Bill by Lena Boehs against William Hanger. Dismissed.
William J. Kearns, for complainant.
MAGIE, Ch. By her bill, complainant seeks a decree annulling the marriage between her and the defendant. The defendant not having interposed any defense, a reference of the matter to a special master was made, under rule 165b. The special master has sent up the proofs taken before him, with his opinion that said proofs are insufficient to justify a decree declaring the marriage between the parties null and void. The cause has been brought to hearing upon the bill, proofs, and report, to which exceptions were filed. It is now argued that the master's opinion was erroneous, and that upon the proofs the decree sought ought to be made.
It is settled in this state that the Court of Chancery, under its general power to annul fraudulent contracts, has jurisdiction to annul a contract of, marriage for fraud. Carris' v. Carris, 24 N. J. Eq. 516; Crane v. Crane, 62 N. J. Eq. 21, 49 Atl. 734, and cases cited. But it is not for every fraud perpetrated in respect to this peculiar relation that a court should interfere to nullify it. In the prevailing opinion of Mr. Justice Bedle in the Carris Case, the Court of Errors lays down the rule that the marital relation will not be annulled for any fraud except that which operates upon the very essentials of marriage, and never when the effect of its annulment is against sound public policy.
The facts proved and relied on to justify and require a decree declaring the marriage null and void are the following: The parties were legally married on September 29, 1901, and lived together as husband and wife until September, 1902, when complainant left defendant because he failed to support her. Afterward complainant discovered that defendant had been previously married to another woman, from whom he had been divorced on August 13, 1901. Although the decree of divorce left defendant legally competent to enter into the marriage contract with complainant, and although it is conceded that they did legally contract and live together in marriage, it is contended that complainant was induced to enter into that contract by deception and fraud. She testifies that defendant, before their marriage, asserted to her that he had never been married; and she is corroborated by the justice of the peace who performed the ceremony, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolfe v. Wolfe
...to deny annulments based on fraudulent representations. (See Wells v. Talham (1923), 180 Wis. 654, 194 N.W. 36; Boehs v. Hanger (1905), 69 N.J. Eq. 10, 59 A. 904.) However, in recent years several jurisdictions have adopted a more liberal view of the grounds for For example, in the recent N......
-
Rhoades v. Rhoades
...of these elements and would seem to fall into the category of the following in which the fraud was held insufficient. In Boehs v. Hanger, 69 N.J.Eq. 10, 59 A. 904, the court declined to avoid a consummated marriage because of concealment of a previous marriage no longer subsisting, and in G......
- Mayor v. Weeks
-
Jakar v. Jakar
...essentials of the marriage relation. Reynolds v. Reynolds, 85 Mass. (3 Allen) 605; Foss v. Foss, 94 Mass. (12 Allen) 26; Boehs v. Hanger, 69 N. J. Eq. 10, 59 A. 904. "False representation of a party as to his social standing or fortune do not constitute such fraud on the opposite party as t......