Boland v. O'Neil

• Decision Date: 01 August 1899
• Parties: BOLAND v. O'NEIL.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

44 A. 15

72 Conn. 217

BOLAND

v. O'NEIL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Aug. 1, 1899.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; Samuel O. Prentice, Judge.

Action by Mary A. Boland against Frank J. O'Neil, administrator, to recover damages for breach of contract of separation made between plaintiff and her husband, defendant's intestate. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

In the original writ the plaintiff describes herself as Mary A. Boland, formerly known as Mary A. Casey. In the original complaint she asked for $15,000 damages, and for specific performance of the contract therein set forth.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which was demurred to, and the demurrer was sustained. Thereupon she filed a second amended complaint, which was as follows: (1) The plaintiff was the wife of the said Patrick C. Boland, deceased. (2) Said marriage relation was entered into subsequent to April 20, 1877. (3) In consideration of the premises, and of the legal and moral obligations which the said Patrick C. Boland, deceased, was under to the plaintiff, and of the plaintiff's promise to and agreement with the said Patrick C. Boland, deceased, not to enforce by legal proceedings her legal rights and claims against him to compel him to support and maintain her, and in further consideration of the plaintiff's promise to and agreement with the said Patrick C. Boland, deceased, to leave her relatives and friends, and to go to Hartford, and to live among strangers, and to conduct herself in a virtuous manner, and to support and to maintain herself, and that this condition of affairs should continue until such time as the said Patrick C. Boland, deceased, should be willing to take her to his own home, the said Patrick C. Boland, on the 4th day of July, 1896, and on divers other days prior thereto and since said 4th day of July, 1896, agreed to and with the said Mary A. Boland to transfer, assign, and deliver to her two bank books, to wit, one book on the City Savings Bank of said Meriden, and one on the Meriden Savings Bank of said Meriden, together with the sums of money owned by the said deceased and represented by the said books, being in all the sum of $10,000. (4) From time to time prior to and since said 4th day of July, 1890, and up to the date of his death, the said Patrick C. Boland, deceased, renewed his promise to and agreement with the plaintiff, as set forth in the preceding paragraph, and, upon the considerations set forth, to transfer, assign, and deliver to her, the said Mary A. Boland, the legal title to said bank books, and the sums of money represented thereby, being in all the sum of $10,000, and partially made arrangements so to do in the summer of 1897, when he died suddenly, at said Meriden, and never in fact did transfer, assign, and deliver to her the said bank books and the sums of money represented thereby, being in all the sum of $10,000, nor any part thereof. (5) Said Mary A. Boland, in fulfillment of her promises and agreements as aforesaid,' did not pursue her legal right to support and maintenance against the said Patrick C. Boland, deceased, and did leave her relatives and friends, and go to Hartford, and there remained until the time of the decease of the said Patrick C. Boland, and did conduct herself in a virtuous manner, and did also support and maintain herself during all of the said time, and performed all of the other conditions of the said agreement on her part to be performed. This complaint also alleged that the deceased left an estate valued at the time of his death, on July 17, 1897, at $15,000; that plaintiff's claim had been duly presented to the defendant administrator,—and claimed $15,000 damages, without asking for the transfer to her of said bank books.

To said second amended complaint the defendant demurred upon the following grounds: "(1) That the facts set forth in said contract do not constitute a valid contract, for that a husband and wife have not, either in law or in equity, capacity to contract together in regard to the matters in said substituted complaint set out, in the manner alleged. (2) That the alleged contract or agreement therein set out is not valid, either in law or in equity, because no sufficient or adequate consideration therefor is alleged. (3) That the agreement alleged to have been made was and is void, both at law and in equity, as contrary to good morals and against public policy. (4) That the facts alleged show a promise to make a gift, and, as no delivery in fact is alleged to have been made, the transaction is incomplete, and will not support a proceeding either at law or in equity."

Cornelius J. Danaher, for appellant.

George A. Fay and William L. Bennett, for appellee.

HALL, J. (after stating the facts). The rulings of the court sustaining the defendant's demurrer to each of the two amended complaints are the reasons of appeal assigned. The plaintiff is not entitled to have reviewed the ruling of the court upon the demurrer to the first amended complaint. The filing of the second amended complaint was a withdrawal of the first. It is alleged as grounds of demurrer that the contract described is not one which, either in law or equity, could be entered into between husband and wife, and that it is void, both in law and equity, as contrary to good morals, and against public policy. Equity does not recognize the same right in husband and wife to contract with each other as they would have at common law were they single. Contracts made in good faith, upon a valuable consideration, and which are Just and reasonable, and certain in their terms, will be enforced in equity; but courts of equity will examine them with great caution before they will confirm them. Hinman v. Parkis, 33 Conn. 188; Schouler, Dom. Rel. § 191. Among the contracts between husband and wife which are thus supported by courts of equity are certain...