Davis v. Green

• Citation: 108 A. 772
• Decision Date: 06 October 1919
• Docket Number: No. 44/531.,44/531.
• Parties: DAVIS v. GREEN.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

108 A. 772

DAVIS

v. GREEN.

No. 44/531.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Oct. 6, 1919.

Petition by Sadie R. Davis against Howard Green for a decree annulling petitioner's marriage to defendant. Case heard on exceptions to master's report denying relief, and decree advised in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

Petitioner seeks a decree annulling her marriage to defendant on the ground that at the time of her marriage to defendant she was the lawful wife of another man.

No defense has been made. The testimony taken before the special master fully established the fact of petitioner's ceremonial marriage to defendant, and also the fact of her prior lawful marriage to another, and that her lawful husband was 'ill alive at the time of her marriage to defendant, and also at the time of the hearing, and that he had not been divorced from petitioner. It was further established that at the time of the marriage of petitioner and defendant both parties well knew that petitioner was the lawful wife of another person, and that their marriage was, in consequence, void; that petitioner and defendant cohabited for about one year, during all of which time petitioner knew that her conduct was criminal; that at the end of that time she left defendant because she "felt that it wasn't right to live in that way." No child was born of the unlawful marriage.

The foregoing facts were specifically found by the learned master, but a decree for petitioner was by him denied because of the equitable maxim that relief should not be awarded to one who comes into court with unclean hands.

Exceptions have been filed in behalf of petitioner upon the ground that the facts established by the evidence entitled petitioner to a decree.

D. T. Stackhouse, of Camden, for petitioner.

LEAMING, V. C. (after stating the facts as above). In Rooney v. Rooney, 54 N. J. Eq. 231, 34 Atl. 682, the learned vice chancellor denied a decree of annulment of a void marriage because of the established equitable maxim that relief would not be granted to a suitor who should come into a court of equity with unclean hands. In that case the husband, who sought the decree of annulment, had fraudulently concealed from his innocent victim the fact that he had a lawful wife; other circumstances of that case also appealed with extraordinary force to the enforcement of the equitable maxim there made the basis of the decree. The present case differs from the Rooney Case by the circumstance that neither party was guilty of fraudulent concealment from the other, since both parties to the unlawful marriage knew that the wife, petitioner herein, had a husband who was alive at the time, and both parties knew that their marriage was unlawful by reason of that fact; they were in pari delicto.

Our Divorce Act (2 Comp. St 1910, p. 2021) provides:

"Decrees of nullity of marriage may be rendered in all cases when—1. Either of the parties has another wife or husband living at the time of a second or other marriage."

Assuming, as I do, that the Court of Chancery of this state in the exercise of its statutory jurisdiction in cases of nullity and divorce should give due recognition and force to the established principles which are applied in ordinary suits iu equity, I am yet unable to conclude that the petitioner herein should be denied a decree.

The equitable maxim that he who comes into equity must come with clean hands is subject to well-defined limitations. While the general rule is that where the parties are in pari delicto no affirmative relief of any kind will be given to one against the other, that rule has always been regarded by courts of equity as without controlling...