Miller v. Miller
| Decision Date | 23 November 1925 |
| Docket Number | 154 |
| Citation | 131 A. 236,284 Pa. 414 |
| Parties | Miller, Appellant, v. Miller |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued September 29, 1925
Appeal, No. 154, March T., 1925, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. Venango Co., Jan. T., 1924, No. 19, entering judgment for defendant on affidavit of defense raising questions of law, in case of Mary F. P. Miller v. G. J. S. Miller. Reversed.
Assumpsit for moneys alleged to be due on a written contract. [*]
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Judgment for defendant on question of law raised by affidavit of defense. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was judgment, quoting it.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and a procedendo awarded.
W. M Parker, with him J. D. Trax, for appellant. -- When a written contract is attacked upon the ground that it is offensive to law or violative of public policy, the substance, not the form, of the agreement is looked at, and the court must not confine its attention to the mere words in which the agreement is expressed, but evidence aliunde the contract is admissible, either to prove the legality or the illegality of the contract: M'Kean v. Wagenblast, 2 Grant 462; Reynolds v. Richards, 14 Pa. 205; Kuhn v Buhl, 251 Pa. 348.
N. F. Osmer, with him A. R. Osmer, for appellee. -- A contract between husband and wife, pending proceedings in divorce, by which she would be paid money, the consideration for which was that she should not oppose the divorce, is void: Kilborn v. Field, 78 Pa. 194; Irvin v. Irvin, 169 Pa. 529; Mathiot's Est., 243 Pa. 375; Swing v. Munson, 191 Pa. 582; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 30 Pa. 417; Pittsburgh v. Goshorn, 230 Pa. 212.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
The plaintiff in this case, the divorced wife of defendant, had left the family home by reason of his misconduct. The husband was legally liable for her support, and possessed of ample means with which to provide the same. At the suggestion of his father, an arrangement was entered into to effect this end, and certain shares of stock were deposited with a trustee, the income derived to be applied for the use of plaintiff. It was anticipated that $3,200 a year would be realized, and it was agreed that if the dividends received, after the transfer of the stock, should be in a less amount, stipulated payments would be made be made by the husband. Prior to the making of the agreement, now the subject of controversy, Mrs. Miller employed an attorney to apply for a divorce, and shortly thereafter a libel was filed, which was followed by the entry of a final decree some months later. Thereupon, the stock referred to was handed over to the plaintiff. No dividends were declared, and the defendant paid the monthly amount agreed upon until January, 1923, and thereafter a small sum. This suit was brought to recover installments due from that time, as stipulated in the writing of March 12, 1913.
To the amended statement of claim, an affidavit of defense was interposed, raising solely the question of law as to the right to recover upon the contract, averring that the illegality was apparent on its face. It was contended that the real consideration for the promise to pay was the obtaining of a divorce, and therefore the contract was unenforceable as repugnant to public policy. This legal position was sustained by the court below, and judgment entered for the defendant. We are now asked to review the conclusion reached, and do so, having in mind that all material facts averred in the statement shall, for present purposes, be taken as provable, and the benefit of reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom must be given the plaintiff. It is also to be remembered that any doubt existing, as to the right to summary judgment, shall be resolved in her favor: Rhodes v. Terheyden, 272 Pa. 397.
The contract in dispute sets forth the purpose of the wife to immediately apply for an absolute divorce, and that the husband recognized his legal liability to her for support and maintenance. There follows the provision for the transfer of the stock, before mentioned, to one named, "to be by him held in trust for [the husband] until such time as [his] said wife procures an absolute divorce from [him], within the next eight months, succeeding the date hereof, when and at which time he shall transfer and assign the same to [his] wife absolutely." It is further stipulated that if no divorce is obtained, the securities shall be returned to the settlor, and the agreement also sets forth the understanding as to the amount to be paid if the stock be given to the wife and dividends thereon remain unpaid. Plaintiff avers in the statement filed that this arrangement was made solely to obtain reasonable maintenance, and fixed a sum less than could have been secured from a court of competent jurisdiction, either in a proceeding for nonsupport, or as alimony. It is further claimed, the stipulation referring to a divorce was merely incidental, and was in no way dishonestly entered into for the purpose of facilitating the granting of a decree, or to assure that an application to the court would remain unopposed. In the opinion filed below, it is said that the writing alone must control, and since there was no suggestion of fraud, accident, or mistake in its execution, parol evidence to explain the understanding of the parties was inadmissible. The plaintiff asserts there was no collusion to secure a divorce, and that the facts averred disclose the intention of the parties, negativing the existence of any such purpose, and therefore the contract cannot be properly construed to be one having for its end the performance of an act opposed to public policy, and, as a result, unenforceable.
Family settlements are always favored, and, when made to settle controversies between husband and wife, will be enforced if legally possible: Fishblate v. Fishblate, 238 Pa. 450. So agreements for support of one who has withdrawn from the house and family, or made in view of an understanding that the marital ties will be immediately broken, are upheld (Burkholder's App., 105 Pa. 31; Hitner's App., 54 Pa. 110; Dillinger's App., 35 Pa. 357; Hutton v. Hutton, 3 Pa. 100), and the rights of the parties thereunder may now be enforced without the intervention of a trustee: Fennell's Est., 207 Pa. 309; Com. v. Richards, 131 Pa. 209. Such an agreement may properly be entered into to facilitate a disposition of the property between husband and wife (Amspoker v. Amspoker, 155 N.W. 602, 99 Neb. 122), or be executed in consideration of the withdrawal of a proceeding for desertion or nonsupport: Snyder v. Snyder, 57 Pa.Super. 575. If legally made, and apparently fair and reasonable, compliance with the terms agreed on will be compelled: Frank's App., 195 Pa. 26; Singer's Est., 233 Pa. 55.
It is conceded by both parties here that if the contract had for its sole purpose the securing of a divorce, the agreement would be held contrary to public policy, and therefore inoperative (Mathiot's Est., 243 Pa. 375; Kilborn v Field, 78 Pa. 194), though this cannot be shown by parol as a defense in an action to enforce its terms, when based on an apparently legal contract, where the purpose is to set up a collateral and collusive understanding in contradiction of the legal consideration expressed: Irvin v. Irvin, 169 Pa. 529; Rodenbaugh v. Rodenbaugh, 17 Pa.Super. 619. Likewise, an arrangement tending to facilitate the granting of a decree is invalid, and where collusion appears, as shown by a promise not to defend, nor to furnish evidence for the libellant, it cannot be sustained. However, if the facts negative this idea, a settlement for support or alimony will be...
To continue reading
Request your trial