
    Beatrice P. Nugent, Respondent, v. William E. Smith et al., Appellants.
    
      Pleading — when complaint in action for specific performance of contract executed by defendant as inducement to plaintiff to refrain from giving information as to his marriage states cause of action.
    
    
      Nugent v. Smith, 202 App. Div. 739, affirmed.
    (Argued November 21, 1922;
    decided December 12, 1922.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate .Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 23, 1922, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying defendant’s motion for judgment upon the pleadings. The action was in equity for the specific performance of a contract between plaintiff and defendant William E. Smith. The supplemental complaint showed that defendant Smith had married a woman to whom his mother objected; that he feared his mother would revoke her will, under which he was to receive several millions of dollars if she learned of the marriage; and that Smith executed the contract as the price of plaintiff’s promise to refrain from divulging to Smith’s mother the fact of his said marriage.
    The following question was certified: “ Does the supplemental complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action? ”
    
      Samuel Seabury and I. T. Flatto for appellants.
    
      Henry M. T. Beekman for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  