McBride v. Garland

• Decision Date: 18 June 1918
• Docket Number: No. 44/731.,44/731.
• Parties: McBRIDE et al. v. GARLAND et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

104 A. 435

McBRIDE et al.

v. GARLAND et al.

No. 44/731.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

June 18, 1918.

Suit by Hesser G. McBride and another, as executors of the estate of Edward M. Richman, deceased, against Mabel Brooks Garland and another. On order to show cause; on motion to strike out bill. Motion to strike out granted, order to show cause dismissed, and the restraint dissolved.

George Edward Quigley, of Union Hill, for complainants. Wolber & Blake, of Newark, for defendant Garland. Alfred Hurrell, of New York City, and James Guest, of Newark, for Prudential Ins. Co. of America.

LANE, V. C. The bill, considered as favorably to complainants as possible, may be said to allege that the Prudential Insurance Company of America, at the request of Edward M. Richman, deceased, and in consideration of premium paid by him, issued its policy of insurance upon his life, payable to Mabel Brooks Garland, his mistress; that Richman obtained the policy and had it made payable to Garland upon Garland's promise that she would continue illicit relations with him; that such illicit relations continued; that the contract between Garland and Richman was immoral and illegal; that the policy provided that in case of the death of Garland prior to Richman, the proceeds should be paid to the executors, administrators, or assigns of Richman. No other provision of the policy is set out. The bill alleges that the proceeds should be paid not to Garland, but to the contingent beneficiaries. The bill also prays that the policy be reformed by striking out the provisions making it payable to Garland and inserting a provision making it payable to the executors, administrators, or assigns of Richman.

I have not been favored with a brief of complainants. The defendant Prudential Company, moving to strike out, has furnished me with exhaustive briefs. It seems to me that it would be superfluous to consider the numerous cases cited. Upon what theory complainants insist that the proceeds should be paid to them as contingent beneficiaries is not disclosed. It is only in case Garland predeceases Richman that his executors, administrators, or assigns are given any rights under the policy. The fact that Garland was the mistress of Richman, and that the policy was made payable to her for this reason, does not equal her death. The attempt of complainants in reality is, not to reform the policy, but to make a contract not thought of by either of the parties to it. It seems to be the idea of complainants that because Garland induced Richman to have the policy written in her favor by an immoral promise, this court may compel the Prudential Company, not a party to the immoral transaction, to make a contract which it never dreamed of making. Whether the Prudential Company can resist the claim made by Garland is, so far as the allegations of the bill disclose, no concern whatever of complainants. Their uttermost rights would be to recover, for the estate, the premiums paid by Richman if, in fact, the Prudential Company does not pay the amount due on the policy. No case has been brought to my attention that would warrant the court in taking any such action as complainants ask.

As there may be an application to amend the bill, there is another insurmountable difficulty to the granting of any relief that should be mentioned. Defendant Garland is a...