Dundee Chem. Works v. Conner

Decision Date21 June 1890
Citation20 A. 50,46 N.J.E. 576
PartiesDUNDEE CHEMICAL WORKS v. CONNER.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court
Reversing 17 Atl. Rep. 975

BEASLEY, C. J., VAN SYCKEL, Justice, and CLEMENT and BROWN, JJ., dissenting.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from court of chancery; BIRD, Vice-Chancellor.

Argued at March term, 1890, before BEASLEY, C. J., DEPUE, DIXON, GARRISON, MAGIE, REED, SCUDDER, and VAN SYCKEL. Justices, and BROWN, CLEMENT, COLE, and SMITH, JJ.

Mr. Griggs, for appellant. J. T. Dunn, for respondent.

MAGIE, J. The controversy in this cause relates to a general release given by respondent, as widow and administratrix of William A. Conner, deceased, to the appellant, a corporation known as the Dundee Chemical Works. After the release, respondent brought an action in the supreme court to recover from appellant damages for the death of her husband, which she charged to have been occasioned by its negligence. The release was pleaded as a defense to that action. A replication charging that it had been procured by fraud was on demurrer held to be bad because the fraud had been insufficiently alleged, and because the statutes permitting fraud to be set up at law in respect to sealed instruments did not extend to a case where such an instrument is interposed as a defense in bar. Connor v. Chemical Works, 50 N. J. Law, 257, 12 Atl. Rep. 713. Respondent, without reviewing the rulings in that case, filed her bill in the court of chancery, and upon charges of fraud, prayed for a decree that the release should be surrendered, and the appellant should be enjoined from setting it up, or relying on it, in the action at law. Upon the bill and accompanying affidavits, a preliminary injunction was allowed as prayed. The cause having been brought to hearing, the injunction was made perpetual by a final decree. The appeal is taken from that decree.

The bill charged that the release was obtained by the fraud of an officer of the appellant company, who is also a member of the bar. The specific charge was that at the time the release was made the confidential relation of client and attorney existed between respondent and Mr. Johnson, the officer and lawyer in question, in respect to her claim for damages for the death of her husband, and that the release was obtained through the influence which that relation had created. The affidavits of respondent, and of a friend who was present at the execution of the release, supported the charges of the bill in this respect. The answer and accompanying affidavits met the charge with a specific and complete denial. On the trial of the cause, respondent and her friend were called in support of the bill. It is not enough to say that their testimony does not agree with or support their affidavits. The absolute falsity of the charge that the confidential relation of attorney and client existed is, I think, demonstrated by their own evidence. No explanation of this discrepancy between the affidavits and the testimony is discoverable in the evidence, or has been suggested in the argument. Not only does the evidence for respondent negative the existence of that confidential relation which was particularly charged in the bill and affidavits, but the case is barren of anything to justify the inference that any confidential relation whatever existed; for such a relation is not to be inferred from the fact that Johnson visited respondent on hearing of the sudden death of her husband, who had been long a trusted employe of his company, nor from the fact that he offered in behalf of the company to pay, and did pay, the funeral expenses. Nor can such an inference be drawn from the fact that Johnson sent word to respondent that he would go with her to the surrogate's office, when she should go to get letters of administration, if she desired; for it does not appear that she received the message, and it does appear that she did not accept the offer. No confidential relation between the parties having been shown, there is no room for a presumption that the release was the product of an undue influence.

Such was the view taken below; yet the learned vice-chancellor reached the conclusion on the proofs that an undue influence had been exerted by Johnson upon respondent to induce her to execute the release. Such undue influence he deemed to have been exerted, as it were, unconsciously, and to be inferable from two circumstances, viz., the disparity between respondent and Johnson in business capacity, and the fact that Johnson told respondent, in the course of the negotiations, that his company was not liable for the death of her husband, but that, if anybody was, it was the Forsith Powder Company, a corporation which, it seems, owned the tank, the explosion of which killed respondent's husband. A careful examination of the case has not enabled me to discover any other ground for imputing undue influence; and the circumstances relied on below do not, in my judgment, justify...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Bilotti v. Accurate Forming Corp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1963
    ...84 N.J.Eq. 261, 94 A. 81 (Ch.1915); Connor v. Dundee Chemical Works, 50 N.J.L. 257, 12 A. 713 (Sup.Ct.1888); Dundee Chemical Works v. Connor, 46 N.J.Eq. 576, 20 A. 50 (E. & A.1890). When, however, the claim was one of fraud arising out of representations going only to the nature or effect o......
  • Baby M., Matter of
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • March 31, 1987
    ...settled that disparity of education or sophistication is not considered grounds for avoidance of a contract. Dundee Chemical Works v. Connor, 46 N.J.Eq. 576, 20 A. 50 (E. & A.1890). In Dundee, the adversaries were a homemaker-executrix and an attorney. The Court held it would not weigh the ......
  • Scott v. Bodnar
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • November 12, 1958
    ...and inequitable advantage was taken by the company's agents, that the release must be set aside.' See Dundee Chemical Works v. Connor, 46 N.J.Eq. 576, 582, 20 A. 50, 51 (E. & A.1890); Mullaney v. Mullaney, 65 N.J.Eq. 384, 396, 54 A. 1086 (E. & A.1903). In the Connor case, supra, Justice Mag......
  • Wojcik v. Pollock
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • October 9, 1967
    ...of the defendant. McGrail v. Jersey Central Traction Co., supra; Heuter v. Coastal Air Lines, Inc., supra; Dundee Chemical Works v. Connor, 46 N.J.Eq. 576, 20 A. 50 (E. & A.1890). One of the proper factors in order to prove fraud is the inadequacy of consideration. Although inadequacy of co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT