Metzler v. Metzler

• Decision Date: 17 October 1930
• Citation: 151 A. 847
• Parties: METZLER v. METZLER.
• Court: New Jersey Circuit Court

151 A. 847

METZLER

v. METZLER.

Circuit Court of New Jersey, Passaic County.

Oct. 17, 1930.

Action by Ruth Metzler against Walter Metzler. On motion to strike out the complaint.

Motion granted.

Feder & Rinzler, of Passaic, for plaintiff.

Jacob Van Der Clock, of Paterson, for defendant.

MACKAY, J.

The plaintiff in this action, Ruth Metzler, is the wife of the defendant, Walter Metzler. By virtue of some contract, or agreement or contractual relationship or other, the plaintiff brought an action at law in the New York courts as wife against the defendant and obtained a judgment for the amount mentioned in the complaint in this action. It seems to be admitted that a judgment was rendered and that the authority for the wife to bring an action at law against the husband was governed by a New York statute providing therefor. The wife now brings this action in the New Jersey court of law founded upon this judgment obtained in the New York court of law. It is admitted by both plaintiff and defendant that the husband was regularly served in New York and there was no fraud. These appear to be the two defenses allowed to an action in this state upon what is called a foreign judgment.

The plaintiff moves for a summary judgment, contending that because of the New York statute giving authority to sue at law in New York, she has a right to bring her action in this state upon the judgment there obtained. The defendant moves to strike out the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain her action in this court.

Counsel for both plaintiff and defendant said they could find no law on the subject in New Jersey or elsewhere where a judgment had been obtained in a state in an action at law by the wife against the husband or vice versa, and an action brought upon that judgment in a law court in a state where there was no statute.

At first blush I was inclined to believe that the plaintiff! was entitled, to a judgment, but upon mature consideration of the matter I am inclined to believe that the action cannot be maintained.

In the case of Wood v. Chetwood, 44 N. J. Eq. 64, 14 A. 21, 22, affirmed, 45 N. J. Eq. 369, 19 A. 622, Vice Chancellor Van Fleet said:

"If a right of action exists in the complainant, it would seem to be unquestionable that this court has exclusive original jurisdiction over it. The foundation of the action is a contract made by a husband with his wife. To entitle the complainant to recover, a contract, either express or implied, must be shown to have existed between the husband and his wife. Contracts between persons holding this relation to each other still stand on their ancient footing,—void at law, but good in equity, if fair and fairly obtained. The statutes giving married women the same dominion over their property that they might exercise if they were single expressly declare: 'Nor shall anything herein enable husband or wife to contract with or to sue each other, except as heretofore.' Revision 689, § 14. Courts of equity alone can give a remedy on a contract made between a husband and his wife, whether redress is sought by one of the original parties against the other, or by or against the legal representative of one or both of the original parties. Woodruff v. Clark, 42 N. J. Law [13 Vr.] 198; Gould v. Gould, 35 N. J. Eq. [8 Stew. Eq.] 37; on appeal, 35 N. J. Eq. [8 Stew. Eq.] 562; Rusling v. Rusling, 47 N. J. Law [18 Vr.] 1; National Bank of Rahway v. Brewster, 49 N. J. Law [20 Vr.] 231 ." See, also, Drum v. Drum, 69 N. J. Law, 557, 55 A. 86.

I cannot find anything in ...