Opinion
Decided September 22d 1939.
Complainant entered into the lease in question in order to deceive the officials of the municipality, and by such deception influence them in the performance of their official duties. Held, cancellation of the lease was properly denied; complainant came into equity with unclean hands.
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow, who filed the following opinion:
"The order to show cause will be discharged and the bill dismissed for the following reasons:
"The defendants, in 1935, owned land in the city of Summit and wished to obtain from the city a permit to operate a gasoline service station on the premises. They thought that the officers of the city having jurisdiction, would be more apt to grant the permit if the land were under lease to someone ready to operate the service station. Thereupon defendants and complainant entered into a lease for a term of fifteen years at an annual rental ranging from $1,000 to $1,800. The lease set forth that the complainant, as tenant, contemplated the erection upon the premises of an automobile gasoline service station and that, if a permit was not granted, then the lease should be void. The defendants have begun suit in the circuit court for three months' rent. The bill shows that the lease was executed `merely for the purpose of displaying by the defendants, in case they required the same in their proposed application for a gasoline permit,' and that complainant and defendants alike understood `that the signing of the lease would have no effect and that the agreement of lease would be returned to the complainant corporation as soon as it had served the purposes of the defendants.' The bill prays that the lease be canceled and the law suit be enjoined.
"Complainant entered into the lease in order to deceive the officials of Summit and by deception to influence them in the performance of their official duties. A clearer case of unclean hands could hardly be presented. This leads me to the decision stated at the beginning of this memorandum."
Mr. Abraham J. Cohen, for the appellant.
Messrs. Mellinger Rudenstein, for the respondents.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow in the court of chancery. For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, HETFIELD, DEAR, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.