Chew v. EaganChew v. Eagan
Pursuant to rule 213 a motion has been made in behalf of defendant Lillie V. Eagan to strike out paragraphs 4. and 5 of complainant’s bill of сomplaint upon the ground that the two paragraphs named are “scandalous and impertinent.”
. The bill has been filed by Irene E. Chew аgainst her husband, William E. Chew, and his alleged illicit paramour, Lillie Y. Eagan, for the purpose of establishing by decree of this court that cеrtain real estate, the legal title to which stands in the name of Lillie Y. Eagan, is in fact owned by complainant’s husband. The object of the suit is to establish in complainant an inchoate right of dower as a charge against the land, and 'the bill is also in aid of a suit now pending in this court in which complainant seeks to compel her husband to contribute to her support, in which suit defendant Lillie Y. Eagan is not a party.
The averments of thе two paragraphs of the bill against which' the motion is directed are to the effect that defendant Lillie Y. Eagan and complainant’s husband live together in open adultery and are known in the neighborhood where they live as husband and wife, and that Lillie V% Eagan holds herself out to the world as the wife of complainant’s husband and at times assumes his name.
Exceptions ■ and motions of this nature, based on a claim of scandal and impertinence, have become so infrequent in our equity practice that a brief review of the prinсiples controlling the subject may be appropriate.
Impertinence, in equity pleading, signifies that Avhich is irreleArant and which doеs not, in consequence, belong to the pleading. The Avord does not include the idea of offending propriety. The full significancе of the word is found in the expression not pertinent. The element of offending the senses is found in the Avord “scandalous.” But, as i? pointed out in 1 Dan. Ch. Pl. &
. In determining the relevancy оf an averment in a bill in equity an element peculiar alone to equity pleading must be borne in mind. A bill in equity has a twofold purpose. The first is tо “bring before the court and to put in issue the facts upon which the complainant’s right to relief rests;” the second puipose, and the one peculiar to equity pleading, is “an examination of the defendant for the purpose of obtaining evidence to еstablish.the complainant’s case, or to counter-prove the defence which it is supposed may be .set up in the answer.” Frоm this , latter office the general rule is deduced that a complainant is permitted to set forth any fact, the admission of which by the defendant would go to establish the complainant’s own case, or overturn that of his adversary. This is specifically stated and made thе basis of decision in Camden and Amboy Railroad Co. v. Stewart, 21 N. J. Eq. 484, and again in Dodd v. Wilkinson, 42 N. J. Eq. 647. In the latter case, after referring to the effect of the peculiar office of a bill in equity to obtain еvidence to establish complainant’s case, our court of appeals -clearly expresses approval of the' rule laid down in Howley v. Wolverton,
An application of the principles above reviewed to the present moti'on discloses with clearness that the motion must be denied.
The primary issue- presented by thе bill is whether the real estate in question belongs to complainant’s husband or to defendant Lillie V. Eagan. Paragraphs 2, 3, 8 and 9 of the bill allege that complainant’s husband has deserted her and neglects and refuses to support her except as required by orders of сourt, and that defendant Lillie Y. Eagan is without means and has no source of income except that received from complainant’s husband, and that the real estate in question was purchased and paid for by complainant’s husband and the title taken by him in the name оf defendant Lillie V. Eagan to defraud complainant of her rjghts as a wife, and that the- two defendants have thus conspired together to defraud complainant in the manner stated. It must, accordingly, be ascertained in this suit whether a secret trust for the unlawful purpose stаted in the bill exists between these two defendants touching the land in question. A solution of this primary issue tendered by the bill necessarily involves an еxhaustive inquiry touching the existing relations between these two defendants. If it be true that complainant’s husband, while deserting complainant аnd resisting hex claims to his support, has maintained the criminal relations with defendant Lillie Y. Eagan stated in the two paragraphs of the bill against which the present motion is made, that latter cir
I will advise an order overruling the motion to strike out, with costs.