Story Case

Henry Johnson was divorced from his first wife and was paying her an alimony of fifteen dollars a week according to the decree of the Court. Eighteen months after this divorce decree was rendered, he made an agreement with Alice Yonng to marry her within a reasonable time providing the alimony which he was paying the divorced wife could be cancelled by decree of court, or could be reduced to ten dollars. His lawyer, thereupon, proceeded to petition for this reduction of the alimony giving reasonable and proper grounds for the reduction. The Court reduced the alimony to eight dollars a week, but Johnson refused altogether to marry Alice Young. She brought an action for breach of promise to marry. Johnson put in a defense to the effect that the contract was void since it contained a condition contrary to good public policy, namely the clause regarding the reduction in alimony. Is this a good defense?

Ruling Court Case. Noice Vs. Brown, Volume 9 Vroom's New Jersey Reports, Page 228; Volume 20 American Reports, Page 388

The defendant herein was a married man living apart from his wife and seeking a divorce from her. During this time he was devoting his time and attention to the plaintiff. Before the bringing of this action, he promised to marry the plaintiff within a reasonable time after he had procured a divorce from his former wife.

After getting the divorce he refused to marry the plaintiff and she brought this action, seeking damages for the breach of promise to marry. The defense was that the contract to marry was illegal and consequently not binding.

The mutual promises of the parties to marry constitute a sufficient consideration to make a binding contract. Nevertheless, a promise to marry a person when a divorce from a living spouse shall be obtained is contrary to public policy and therefore void.

Mr. Chief Justice Beasly said: "I cannot see the faintest semblance of legality in the promise here laid. A contract is totally void, if, when it is made, it is opposed to morality or public policy. If a husband can bind himself to a future marriage conditioned on the getting of a divorce, so he can incur similar obligation to be put into effect on the dissolution of his marriage by the death of his wife. Such contracts are highly impolitic and highly scandalous and are, therefore, illegal."

So it was held that the plaintiff could not recover.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

When we speak of a contract to marry, we mean an engagement between man and woman to marry at some later time. A contract of marriage or the marriage contract, refers to the relation which exists between husband and wife after the contract to marry has been performed.

In main, the same rules govern the validity of the contract to marry that govern any other simple contract.

The contract, in order to be binding, must be supported by a good consideration. But there is always found a consideration in the mutual promises of the parties. The man agrees to marry the woman in consideration that she will marry him; and these mutual promises make the contract binding.

Like any other contract, the contract to marry will be void in case the promise of one or both is contrary to public policy. It is generally held that a promise to marry when one of the parties shall have secured a divorce, or a promise to marry when one's then living wife shall die is void. Both of these promises are contrary to public policy, and a promise made under these circumstances will not make a binding contract to marry.

A promise to marry conditioned on a reduction of alimony as in the Story Case is not like one contingent on a divorce or death of the wife. There is not the element of bad morals, and the court will probably hold the engagement of Johnson and Miss Young as a good contract. Therefore he is liable for damages because of the breach of contract.