A. B. v. C. D.A. B. v. C. D.
This аction was instituted at law allegedly to recover damages averred to have been sustained as a consequence of the defendant’s fraudulent promise to marry the plaintiff.
According to the complaint, the defendant wilfully and knowingly made false and fraudulent representations and promises of marriage to the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff, a resident of New York, agreed to marry the defendant, a resident of Pennsylvаnia. This was in the latter part of 1935. The complaint further alleges that the defendant then deférred the nuptials for nearly three years, at various times and on various pretexts, before finally declaring at the plaintiff’s hоme that it was not and had never been his intention to marry the plaintiff.
During the “engagement” period, the plaintiff allegedly made gifts to the defendant and expended large sums of money, in contemplation of the supposedly impending marriage, for travel, clothing and otherwise. The expenditures were out of proportion to her custom. In addition to the monetary loss the plaintiff originally alleged great humiliation, anxiety, inconvenience, emotional distress and mental anguish. An amendment eliminated this aver
The defendant, has moved to dismiss the complaint and to have it stricken from the reсord. The former motion is on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause upon which rélief can be granted by this court. The latter motion is on the ground that the complaint contains scandalous matter аnd so should not remain subject to public scrutiny.
It is the contention of the defendant that the relief sought is barred by enactments of the Pennsylvania and New York legislative bodies. Act of June 22, 1935, Pennsylvania, P. L. 450, as amended,
Therefore, if the contract was made in eithеr Pennsylvania .or New York and the present action is properly to be deemed one to recover for the breach thereof, the complaint must be dismissed. Similarly, if the acts furnishing the basis for the action were done in Pennsylvania or in New York and the action is properly to be deemed one to recover for breach of contract to marry, the complaint must be dismissed. Furthermore, though the misrepresentatiоn and contract may have been made elsewhere, if the loss was sustained in either Pennsylvania or New York and an action for relief would be barred there, the complaint must be dismissed, since the law of the place where the loss was sustained determines whether there was actionable fraud. Restatement of Conflict of Laws, § 377(4) ; Keeler v. Fred T. Ley & Co., 1 Cir.,
It is reasonable to infer either that the representations, promises, and contract were made in either New York or Pennsylvania, the respective residences of the plaintiff and defendant, or that the losses were sustained in New York or Pennsylvania. Under either circumstance, thе action is barred here if it is deemed essentially one to recover for a breached contract.
Plaintiff contends, however, that this suit is not predicated upon a breach of promise to marry. The grаvamen -of the action, it is urged, smacks of fraud and deceit and there never was a contract because there could never have been a meeting of the minds, inasmuch as the defendant never intended tо enter into a contract to marry.
Turning to the fundamental proposition here presented, it must be admitted that there is but meager authority to facilitate determination whether the instant action for injury consequent to fraud involved in a fraudulent promise to marry is within the governing prohibitory enactment. However, two recent decisions interpreting the New York Statute provide some assistance and guidance.
In the case of Sulkowski v. Szewczyk,
The Sulkowski case appears to have been stronger than the instant case because in that, case defendant was already married when he made his promise to marry plaintiff. Clearly he never intended to perform. Nevertheless, the Court held that the statute applied, and that the effort -of the plaintiff to escape its provisions was ineffective.
The other case involved fraudulent procurement of a consummated bigamous marriage. Snyder v. Snyder,
It seems to me that there is a policy enunciated by these enactments abolishing breach of promise actions which is broader than their letter. The legislatures evidently have been prompted by concern for the public morals and for the frequently innocent victims of breach of promise actions to preclude resort to the courts for relief from injury consequent to breached promises of marriage. This is true whether the acceptance was made as a result of succumbing to the deceitful wiles of a gay Lothario or as a result of the worshipful wooing of an ardent yet sincere swain. The legislatures did not intend that courts should explore the minds of suitors and determine their sincerity аt the moment of proposal of marriage but rather declared it to be the policy of the state that in the event a breach of the promise occurs relief will be denied in the courts.
The evil sought to be overcome was reasonably deemed serious enough to justify a denial of the judicial process to those asking relief from real as well as fictitious wrongs. Cases based on averments similar to those here alleged had in many instances been supported by perjured testimony and consequently brought discredit on the courts. Further, actions of this sort have been declared a menace to the marriage institution, which is a vital concern of the various states. See the declaration of policy prefacing the above-cited New York enactment.
The suit here involved is essentially a sort in which the service of the summons or merely the threat to do so is often sufficient to cause a, settlement even when there is not any merit to the alleged cause of action. Thus, it is made clear that, as the above-cited cases indicаte, to effect the prohibition enacted by the legislatures it will prove necessary to bar actions which though tortious in form are contractual in essence. That is, it will prove necessary to guard against resort to the action of deceit as a “subterfuge and attempt to circumvent the statutory prohibition.” See Snyder v. Snyder, supra.
The breach of promise occurred in New York, and under the New York Statute no cаuse of action arose “either within or without” New York. The Pennsylvania Statute is similar. Furthermore, Pennsylvania has declared that no suits for breach of promise shall be begun or prosecuted in this state.
It would seem proper for a federal court to follow the rules of the state courts of their district on а question of conflict of laws. Waggaman v. General Finance Company of Philadelphia, 3 Cir.,
Therefore, without concluding as to its sincerity and factual quality, I am bound, for the reasons stated, to decide that the complaint must be dismissed since it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Motion granted to dismiss complaint and to strike it from the record.