Seaman v. Colley

• Decision Date: 03 April 1901
• Citation: 59 N.E. 1017,178 Mass. 478
• Parties: SEAMAN v. COLLEY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

178 Mass. 478

59 N.E. 1017

SEAMAN v. COLLEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 3, 1901

COUNSEL

Wm J. Williams, for plaintiff.

Frank K. Linscott, for defendant.

OPINION

HOLMES C.J.

This is an action on a contract to pay the plaintiff $500 in consideration of his withdrawing his opposition to the probate of the third codicil to his grandfather's will. The probate court had admitted the will and codicils to probate, an appeal had been taken, and the plaintiff and the other next of kin had prevailed before the jury on the issues of sanity and undue influence of the defendant, who was one of the executors. These findings had been set aside, and when the case came on for another trial the plaintiff waived his objections, and the will and codicils were allowed. The court was not informed of the agreement now sued upon. At the trial of the present case a ruling was asked that the contract was against public policy. The ruling was refused, and the case is here on exceptions. It is argued that the contract was a fraud upon the court the other appellant and the estate, but in our opinion only the first branch of the argument is open. The other next of kin was a weak minded son of the testator, who was under guardianship, but it does not appear that his conduct or that of any other person than the parties to the bargain was influenced, or was expected or even likely to be influenced, by the plaintiff's course. It does not appear that the other parties to the appeal were not informed of the plaintiff's arrangement and of the motives which induced his change. Therefore Adams v. Outhouse, 45 N.Y 318, does not apply. The will and codicils are not before us, and it does not appear that there was any other interest to be affected. The only ground on which it can be argued that the bargain was against public policy is that such bargains cannot be made without informing the court, for, if the matter had been known to every one, it would be absurd to say that the plaintiff was not free to consult his own interest in opposing or withdrawing opposition to the codicil, as well for money as without it. Indeed such arrangements as the present have been said to be entitled to the highest favor of the courts. Leach v. Fobes, 11 Gray, 506.

But it was not necessary that the court should be informed of the plaintiff's motives. The court had no interest in the matter. Civil proceedings in court are...