Smith v. Hrzich

• Citation: 61 A.2d 497
• Decision Date: 11 October 1948
• Docket Number: No. A-9.,A-9.
• Parties: SMITH v. HRZICH et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

61 A.2d 497

SMITH

v.HRZICH et al.

No. A-9.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Oct. 11, 1948.

Appeal from Former Court of Chancery.

Petition by Charlotte Smith, or otherwise Charlotte Hrzich, against Thomas Hrzich and another to annul a purported marriage. From the decree, the petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

Anthony P. LaPorta, of Hoboken, for appellant.

No appearance for respondents.

WACHENFELD, Justice.

The appellant, Charlotte Smith, seeks to annul her purported marriage to Thomas Hrzich in 1942 upon the ground that there was a common law marriage then existing and at the time undissolved.

In October 1925 she began living with Henry Heitzman and according to her petition she was ‘lawfully married by a form of common law marriage.’ She adopted and used his name and lived with him for sixteen years and nine children were born of the marriage. In September 1941 Heitzman deserted her but no attempt was made to dissolve the bond of matrimony or to do anything in reference thereto. Shortly thereafter she met Thomas Hrzich and on October 17, 1942 went through a marriage ceremony with him at Elkton, Maryland, before a duly qualified minister and they commenced living as husband and wife. In 1946 appellant filed a petition for divorce against Heitzman upon the ground of desertion and a final decree was obtained on June 30, 1947. In that cause she did not disclose or mention the subsequent marriage to Hrzich or indicate any dissatisfaction or difficulty with it. In the same month appellant left the respondent, with whom she had been residing in Hoboken since the marriage ceremony, apparently on the advice of counsel as this petition asking for an annulment was then filed.

No children were born of the second marriage and it is alleged that at the time of the marriage to the respondent her husband of the common law marriage was then and still is alive and the common law marriage was not dissolved but subsisting as a valid marriage.

As a second cause of action the petition states that Hrzich had received various sums of money belonging to the appellant which were deposited in the Hoboken for Savings and prayed for a restraint against the expending of said moneys, while a third cause of action declares that the respondent had possession of certain personal effects to which she was entitled. Both of these claims were withdrawn at the trial and are not considered in this appeal.

Although there was no defense to the petition, the Advisory Master denied the relief asked for on the doctrine of unclean hands as enunciated in Tyll v. Keller, 94 N.J.Eq. 426, 120 A. 6, 7. The appellant appeals from this result, contending she never knew or believed she was lawfully married to Heitzman and it was therefore error for the court below to apply the equitable rule as indicated.

The law is firmly established in Tyll v. Keller, supra, in an opinion by Chief Justice Gummere in what was then our court of last resort, the Court of Errors and Appeals. The appellant there was seeking to have a ceremonial marriage declared null and void upon the ground that there was a prior subsisting marriage. The then Chief Justice said:

‘Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the relief he sought, provided that when he married the respondent he was ignorant of the fact that she then had a husband living, from whom she had not been divorced. If he had this knowledge, and, notwithstanding it, went through the marriage ceremony with...