Bedell v. Bedell — 10 N.Y. St. Rep. 328

Majority

p. 328

Araminta H. Bedell, Resp't, v. Charles C. Bedell et al., App'lts.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,

Filed July 1, 1887).

Headnote

Agreement—When instrument will not be enforced.

An instrument produced by inequitable means should not be enforced, no matter how complete may be the personal honesty of the party seeking-to hold its benefits.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the verdict of a jury rendered at the Dutchess county circuit, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the judge’s minutes.

About September 26, 1872, respondent intermarried with the appellant, Charles E. Bedell.

In September, 1874, she commenced an action against him for separation, and on May 27, 1875, a decree of separation was made ordering said appellant to pay to respondent two hundred and fifty dollars per annum in quarterly payments for her maintenance, and to give her security for such payment pursuant to such decree; he with the appellants Thomas H. Bedell and Edwin Bedell, executed a bond as ordered by the court. This allowance was paid quarterly until about January, 1883. That in December, 1880, the appellant, Charles C. Bedell, brought an action for divorce against the respondent in the court of chancery. Hew Jersey, which action was subsequently dismissed with $259.56-costs, which costs said appellant refused to pay until attached for contempt of court for non-payment thereof, when he gave the proper bond to pay the same. On January 26,1882,.

p. 329

an agreement was obtained as respondent claims, by the defendant, Earl A. Holdridge, from her fraudulently by the terms of which she agreed to cancel the bond and release-said appellant, Charles C. Bedell, from its obligations. That upon such agreement, and on motion of said Charles 0. Bedell, an order was entered January 27, 1882, releasing him and his sureties from the obligations of said bond. The allowance was paid for nearly one year after the entry of such order. This action was brought to set aside such agreement and the order based upon it, upon the ground that it was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and was without consideration.

The question of fraud was tried by a jury.

Guernsey & Marble, for resp’t; Wm. B. Woodin, for applt.

The principal point made by appellant is that the fraud alleged is that of a third party, for whose acts defendants are not responsible and should not suffer.

It is a sufficient answer to say, neither should the plaintiff.

The confusion of ideas results from regarding the decision as a punishment. On the contrary, the question is, was the release obtained in such a way as to be binding.

The release is upon trial, not the defendant; and if the means by which it was obtained are such that it will be unjust to enforce it, the result is that the parties are remitted to their original position.

The release is adjudged never to have had a legal existence.

An instrument procured by inequitable means should not be enforced, no matter how complete may be the personal honesty of the party seeking to hold its benefits.

The question was fully discussed in Huguein v. Baseley (14 Vesey, 273), and the preceding case of Bridgeman v. Green (2 Ves., Sen., 627), is to the same effect.

In each of those cases an innocent party sought to retain a benefit from an instrument procured by unjust means. The principle then established has never been doubted.

It follows that the conversations which took place in the absence of defendants were competent evidence.

The jury having found, upon sufficient evidence, that the release was obtained by inequitable means, it must be set aside.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Dykmajst, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.