Nocenti v. Ruberti

• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery
• Writing for the Court: FALLON, Vice Chancellor
• Citation: Nocenti v. Ruberti, 17 N.J.Misc. 21, 3 A.2d 128 (N.J. Ch. 1933)
• Decision Date: 06 October 1933
• Parties: NOCENTI v. RUBERTI.

3 A.2d 128

NOCENTI

v. RUBERTI.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Oct. 6, 1933.

Proceeding by Diomira A. Nocenti, otherwise Ruberti, against Joseph P. Ruberti, to annul the parties' marriage. On petitioner's exceptions to a special master's adverse report.

Carey & Lane, of Jersey City, for petitioner and exceptant.

FALLON, Vice Chancellor.

This matter is before the court on exceptions to Special Master's Report pursuant to Rule 113. I have concluded, as a result of my consideration of the matter sub judice, that the exceptions to the Special Master's report should be sustained, and that the prayer of the petitioner that the marriage between her and the defendant be decreed null and void for the cause set forth in the petition should be granted. I will advise a decree accordingly. The proofs in the case satisfactorily manifest, in my judgment, that the defendant induced the petitioner to marry him upon the promise and agreement that within a year thereafter he would marry her according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church of which both petitioner and defendant are communicants. I deem it unnecessary for the purpose of the matter sub judice to comment upon the proofs herein, or the report of the Special Master with reference thereto, other than to say that it appears that the petitioner and the defendant went through a civil marriage ceremony on May 11, 1930, which was performed by a Justice of the Peace, with the understanding and on the express promise of the defendant that he would subsequently have a religious marriage ceremony performed according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church of which both the petitioner and the defendant are communicants. There is ample corroboration in the proofs to satisfy me that the defendant prevailed upon petitioner to go through a civil marriage ceremony with him upon his promise that he and the petitioner would subsequently be married according to the rites of the church of which both are communicants. The proofs manifest that notwithstanding her entreaty that he comply with his promise in such respect, he refused so to do. The parties did not publicly announce their marriage, nor did they make same known to their friends or acquaintances.

In Cox v. Cox, N.J.Ch., 110 A. 924, Vice Chancellor Stevenson held that an unconsummated marriage, which is effected by fraud of any kind whatsoever which would render a contract voidable, is voidable at the option of the injured party, if promptly disaffirmed before any change of status has occurred. No change of status has occurred in the matter sub judice. Where, as in the case sub judice, a man as an inducement for a woman to enter into a civil marriage ceremony with him, which for reasons of their own they wished to keep secret for a time, promised he would thereafter go through a religious marriage ceremony with her according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church of which both were communicants, his subsequent refusal to have such religious ceremony performed was fraud upon her for which this court should decree annulment of the marriage, upon her prayer therefor, and particularly where as in the instant case the marriage was not consummated. It is manifest from the proofs herein that if it were not for the aforesaid representation made by the defendant to the petitioner that if she consented to have a civil marriage ceremony performed that a religious marriage ceremony would follow, she would not have entered into marriage with him. It is a general rule that every misrepresentation of a material fact, made with the intention to induce another to enter into an agreement, and without which such other would not have done so, justifies the court in annulling the agreement. Ysern v. Horter, 91 N.J.Eq. 189, at pages 192, 193, 110 A. 31. In Bolmer v. Edsall, 90 N.J.Eq. 299, at page 300, 106 A. 646, it was held that since the status of marriage is conferred by contract, and...