Calcin v. Milburn, Civ. A. No. 524-59.
Decision Date | 06 October 1959 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 524-59. |
Citation | 176 F. Supp. 946 |
Parties | Eleanor CALCIN, Plaintiff, v. Charles Wesley MILBURN, also known as C. Wesley Milburn, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Wilfred L. Dempsey, Summit, N. J., by Michael G. Alenick, Newark, N. J., for defendant.
Plaintiff, Eleanor Calcin, of Ohio, here sues defendant, Charles Wesley Milburn, of New Jersey, for breach of contract to marry. The first count seeks damages, because of injury to name and reputation, and for the support of a child born to the parties. The second count repeats the allegations of the first count, alleging wilfulness. Plaintiff asks for both compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff's allegation of deceit is clearly based on the breach of contract to marry. The jurisdiction of this Court over such cause of action rests solely upon diversity of citizenship.
Such being the case, this Court here sits, as to matters of substantive law, as if it were a court of the State of New Jersey, applying not only the general substantive law of that State, but the conflict of laws rules of that State, Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 478, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477.
The substantive law of the State of New Jersey in the above regard has been made clear by a series of decisions of the courts of that State in construing its so-called Heart Balm statute, N.J.S. 2A:23-1-7, P.L.1935, Chap. 279, § 1, p. 896, et seq., N.J.S.A. The last such decision, one by the highest court of the State, is that of Morris v. MacNab, 1957, 25 N.J. 271, 135 A.2d 657, 659. In this case the Court reviews the purpose and effect of the above legislation, as enacted both in New Jersey and elsewhere, saying:
Morris was not a case of breach of contract to marry, but one where the marriage had occurred, though the defendant had no right to marry, since he was already married. The Court, therefore, held that recovery could be had thereon of the moneys obtained from the woman by the man by his false representations as to his being single, since that action was not one for either "alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction or breach of contract to marry", which alone "are abolished by the act", N.J.S.A. 2A:23-1. But the State's highest court makes perfectly clear the fact that such statute "abolished the right of action theretofore existing to recover damages for `breach of contract to marry'". Not only so, but this statute further provides:
"It shall be unlawful for any person, either as a party or attorney, * * * to file or serve * * * any process or pleading, in any court of this state, setting forth or seeking to recover a sum of money upon any cause of action abolished or barred by this chapter, whether such cause of action arose within or without this state." Italics this Court's N.J.S.A. 2A:23-3.
The statute further provides:
"Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." ibid § 5
Again it provides:
"This chapter shall be liberally construed to effectuate the objects and purposes thereof and the public policy of the state as hereby declared." ibid § 6
It finally provides:
"Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as a repeal of any of the provisions of the penal law or the criminal procedure law or of any other law of the state relating to criminal or quasi-criminal actions or proceedings." ibid § 7
Surely no clearer language could have been used by the Legislature of the State of New Jersey, as interpreted by its courts, to abolish suits on breach of contract to marry, and to declare same to be contrary to the public policy of the State of New Jersey, whether such contract was made in New Jersey or in Ohio, as alleged in the complaint.
An even more exhaustive review of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kozlowski v. Kozlowski
...any suit based upon a breach of promise to marry. Its passage represents a strong public policy against such suits. Calcin v. Milburn, 176 F.Supp. 946 (D.C.N.J.1959). The primary aim of the act was to do away with excessive claims, coercive by their very nature and, frequently, fraudulent i......
-
Tuck v. Tuck
...occurred in part outside the state. (See 2 Carmody-Wait, §§ 21, 22, pp. 19, 20; O'Connor v. Johnson, D.C., 74 F.Supp. 370; Calcin v. Milburn, D.C., 176 F.Supp. 946. Cf. Parker v. Hoefer, 2 N.Y.2d 612, 162 N.Y.S.2d 13, 142 N.E.2d 194; Neporany v. Kir, 5 A.D.2d 438, 173 N.Y.S.2d 146.) Indeed,......
-
Hutchins v. Day, 692
...76, 136 P.2d 116; Albert v. McGrath, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 336, 278 F.2d 16; D.C., 165 F.Supp. 461, A.B. v. C.D., 36 F.Supp. 85; Calcin v. Milburn, D.C., 176 F.Supp. 946; Gaines v. Poindexter, D.C., 155 F.Supp. While we have been unable to find a decision on the exact converse of this case, we t......