Safford v. Safford

• Decision Date: 20 June 1916
• Citation: 113 N.E. 181,224 Mass. 392
• Parties: SAFFORD v. SAFFORD.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

224 Mass. 392

113 N.E. 181

SAFFORD

v.SAFFORD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

June 20, 1916.

Report from Superior Court, Norfolk County; Patrick M. Keating, Judge.

Libel by Henry Willett Safford, by next friend, against Margaret Veronica Safford. After decree dismissing libel, case reported from superior court. Affirmed.

Wm. F. Merritt and N. Thos. Merritt, Jr., both of Boston, for libelant.

Wm. A. O'Hearn, of North Adams, and Wm. G. Todd. of Boston, for libelee.

CROSBY, J.

This is a libel brought in behalf of a minor by his next friend, his father, to annul his marriage with the libelee on the ground of fraud. R. L. c. 151, § 11. The case comes before this court upon a report made by a judge of the superior court, who ruled that upon the evidence the libel could not be maintained, and ordered it dismissed.

The material facts are not in dispute. The parties were married on December 20, 1913. At that time the libelant was about 18 years and 4 months old and the libelee was about 20 years old. At the date of the marriage, the libelee was pregnant with a child of which she was begotten by a man other than the libelant, during the last week in May, 1913. The parties became acquainted about July 10, 1913, and 4 or 5 days afterwards the libelant had sexual intercourse with the libelee; and from that time until within a few days before February 8, 1914, when the libelee's child was born, they frequently had sexual intercourse with each other. The libelee several times falsely represented to the libelant that he was the only man who ever had intercourse with her and that he was responsible for her condition. She threatened him that she would commit suicide unless he married her, and although all these representations were false he believed them to be true, and without attempting to ascertain whether such representations were true or false, entered into the contract of marriage with her. The libelant never had sexual intercourse with any woman before having intercourse with the libelee in July, 1913. It also appears from the report that:

‘His parents told the libelant not to marry the libelee, but to wait and that time would tell whether or not he was the father of the libelee's child, but he did not know at that time that the date of the child's birth and its physical condition at its birth would indicate when the child had been begotten, and these facts were not explained to him.’

It is well settled in this commonwealth that the unchastity of a woman prior to the execution of the contract is not an impediment to a valid marriage. In order to avoid the contract and justify a decree of nullity, the fraud and deception must relate to facts essential to the very existence of the marriage relation. Reynolds v. Reynolds, 3 Allen, 605. It has also been decided by this court that a contract of marriage will not be set aside upon an application by a husband upon the ground of fraud:

‘If it appears that he had the means of ascertaining the falsity of the statements made to him, or that the nature of the transaction and the circumstances attending it were such as to put a reasonable person on inquiry, the presumption of deceit arising from proof of the fraud will be repelled and the party will be left to bear the consequences of his own want of due diligence and caution. A party cannot escape from obligations which he has voluntarily assumed, on the ground that he has been deceived and defrauded, if he neglects to avail himself of means of information within his reach, or if he places a blind or willful confidence in representations which were not calculated to deceive a...