To obtain a divorce by collusion is not only an evasion of justice, but is contrary to public policy, as being in derogation of the marriage relation; and any agreement, therefore, between husband and wife, in consideration of one of them withdrawing or not making opposition to a suit for divorce brought by the other, is void. This applies to any agreement intended to facilitate the procuring of a divorce.1 The common-law rule as to the inability of a married woman to contract has been so far modified in most jurisdictions as to enable her to make a valid contract for the services of an attorney in a divorce suit,2 and in the absence of an express contract she is liable for the reasonable value of the attorney's services;8 but a contract by which the attorney is to receive a portion of the alimony recovered is void, as giving him an interest in the dissolution of the marriage.4

Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 263. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 111; Cent. Dig. §§ 515-520.

97 Hunt v. Hunt, 4 De Gex, F. & J. 221; Fox v. Davis, 113 Mass. 255, 13 Am. Rep. 476; Brown v. Brown, 5 Gill (Md.) 249; Jenkins v. Hall, 26 Or. 79, 37 Pac, 62; Walker v. Walker, 9 Wall. 743, 19 L. Ed. 814; Helms v. Franciscus, 2 Bland (Md.) 544, 20 Am. Dee. 402; Wells v. Stout, 9 Cal. 479; Com. v. Richards, 131 Pa. 209, 18 Atl. 1007; Rains v. Wheeler, 76 Tex. 390, 13 S. W. 324; Clark v. Fosdick, 118 N. Y. 7, 22 N. E. 1111, 6 L. R. A. 132,

16 Am. St. Rep. 733; Carey v. Mackey, 82 Me. 516, 20 Atl. 84, 9 L. R. A. 113,

17 Am. St. Rep. 500; Grime v. Borden, 166 Mass. 198, 44 X. E. 216. Contra, Baum v. Baum, 109 Wis. 47, 85 N. W. 122, 53 L. R. A. 650, 83 Am. St Rep. 854; Foote v. Nickerson, 70 N. H. 496, 48 Atl. 1088, 54 L. R. A. 554. Cf. Bo-land v. O'Neil, 72 Conn. 217, 44 Atl. 15; Bailey v. Dillon, 1S6 Mass. 244, 71 N. E. 538, 66 L. R. A. 427. But agreement may be set aside if not fair to the wife. McConnell v. McConnell, 98 Ark. 193, 136 S. W. 931, 33 L. R. A: (N. S.) 1094. See "Husband and Wife," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 218; Cent. Dig. §§ 1046-1058; "Contracts," Cent. Dig. §§ 515, 511.

98Cartwright v. Cartwright, 3 De Gex, M. & G. 982; Westmeath v. West-meath, 1 Dow. & C. 519; Randall v. Randall, 37 Mich. 563; Brun v. Brun, 64 Neb. 7S2, 90 N. W. 860; Perevia v. Perevia, 156 Cal. 1, 103 Pac. 4S8, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 880, 134 Am. St. Rep. 107. And see cases in preceding note. See "Husband and Wife," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 278; Cent. Dig. §§ 1046-1053; "Contracts," Cent. Dig. §§ 515, 511.

99 Pol. Cont (3d Ed.) 286.

1 Besant v. Wood, 12 Ch. Div. 623; Hamilton v. Hamilton, 89 HI. 349; Stoutenburg v. Lybrand, 13 Ohio St. 228; Muckenburg v. Holler, 29 Ind. 139. 92 Am. Dec. 345; Wilde v. Wilde, 37 Neb. 891, 56 N. W. 724; Comstock v.

On the other hand, a contract made by a wife who is living apart from her husband, whether made with him 5 or with a third party,6 by which she agrees to a restoration of marital relations with her husband, is in accordance with a sound public policy and is valid.

It has also been held that contracts between husband and wife regulating their duties and conduct in matters pertaining directly and exclusively to the home cannot be made the subject of public inquiry, and that it is contrary to public policy to recognize and enforce them.1

Adams, 23 Kan. 513, 33 Am. Rep. 191; Viser v. Bertrand, 14 Ark. 2G7; Adams v. Adams, 25 Minn. 72; Stokes v. Anderson, 118 Ind. 533, 21 N. E. 331, 4 L. R. A. 313; Newman v. Freitas. 129 Cal. 283, 61 Pac. 907, 50 L. R. A. 548; Davis v. Hinman, 73 Neb. 850, 103 N. W. 6G8, 9 Ann. Cas. 376; Donohue v. Donohue, 159 Mo. App. 610, 141 S. W. 4G5. An agreement between a man and bis wife, made the day after be bas been awarded a decree of divorce, to pay an annuity if she will not move for new trial, is void. Blank v. Nohl (Mo.) 19 S. W. 65; Id., 112 Mo. 159, 20 S. W. 477, 18 L. R. A. 350. Contract by wife not to sue for alimony for a year is void. Evans v. Evans, 93 Ky. 510, 20 S. W. 605. If the promisee is ignorant of the fact that the promisor is already married, she may maintain an action against him for breach of his promise. See Paddock v. Robinson, 63 I11. 99, 14 Am. Rep. 112; Haviland v. Halstead, 34 N. Y. 643; Cammerer v. Muller, 60 Hun, 578, 14 N. Y. Supp. 511; Id., 133 N. Y. 623, 30 N. E. 1147; Kerns v. Hagenbucble (Super. N. Y.) 17 N. Y. Supp. 367. Promise to marry on death of divorced wife held valid. Brown v. Odill, 104 Tenn. 250, 56 S. W. 840, 52 L. R. A. 660, 78 Am. St. Rep. 914. Contract for payment of a certain sum to attorney and detective contingent upon procuring a divorce is void. Barngrover v. Pettigrew, 128 Iowa, 533, 104 N. W. 904, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 260, I11 Am. St Rep. 206. But a promise by the husband, after decree of divorce is granted, to pay his wife a certain sum in lieu of his obligation of support, is valid. Nelson v. Vassenden, 115 Minn. 1, 131 N. W. 794, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1167. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § I11; Cent. Dig. §§ 515-520.

2Wolcott v. Patterson, 100 Mich. 227, 58 N. W. 1006, 24 L. R. A 629, 43 Am. St Rep. 456. See "Husband and Wife," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 82; Cent. Dig. §§ S22, 324,.

3McCurdy v. Dillon, 135 Mich. 678, 98 N. W. 746. See "Husband and Wife," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 82; Cent. Dig. §§ S22, 821,.

4McCurdy v. Dillon, 135 Mich. 678, 98 N. W. 746; Jordan v. Westerman, 62 Mich. 170, 28 N. W. 826, 4 Am. St. Rep. 836; McConnell v. McConnell, 98 Ark. 193, 136 S. W. 931, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1094. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § I11; Cent. Dig. §§ 515-520.

5 Adams v. Adams, 91 N. Y. 381, 43 Am. Rep. 675; Barbour v. Barbour, 49 N. J. Eq. 429, 24 Atl. 227. Contra, Merrill v. Peaslee, 146 Mass. 460, 16 N. E. 271, 4 Am. St Rep. 334 (Holmes, Knowlton, and C. Allen, J J., dissenting). See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § I11; Cent. Dig. §§ 515-520.

6 Mack v. Mack, 87 Neb. 819, 128 N. W. 527, 81 L. R. A. (N. S.) 441. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § I11; Cent. Dig. §§ 515-520.

Same - Agreements In Derogation Of Parental Relation

165. A contract whereby a father deprives himself of the custody of his child is contrary to public policy.