Contracts providing for or contemplating the future separation of husband and wife are opposed to public policy; but if a separation has already taken place, or is to take place contemporaneously with the agreement, the modern English cases79 and the majority of American decisions,80 sustain an the husband's obligation to perform promisee for her maintenance in a separation deed,83 though in England unless there is an express "dum casta" clause the obligation is not terminated.84

74 Appleby v. Appleby, 100 Minn. 408, 111 N. W. 305,10 L. R. A. (N. S.), 690, 117 Am. St. Rep. 709, 10 Ann. Cm. 563. But see Bradley v. Bradley, 19 Ont. L. Rep. 525.

75 Fletcher v. Cteborn, 282 El. 143, 118 N. E. 44ft, L. R. A. 1918 C. 331; King v. King, 63Ohio St. 363, 59 N. E. Ill, 52 L. R. A. 157, 81 Am. St. Rep. 635. In the case laet cited, the plaintiff agreed to take care of the promisor while he lived and to refrain from marriage during that time; he in return promising to leave a legacy. The contract was upheld. See also Shafer v. Senseman, 125 Fa. St. 310, 17 Atl. 350. But in Lowe v. Doremus, 84 N. J. L. 658, 87 Atl. 459, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 632, a similar contract was held invalid. A contract between unmarried sisters to leave their property to one another to the exclusion, so far as legally permissible, of future husbands, was upheld in Kloberg v. Teller, 171 N. Y. S. 947.

76 White v. Equitable Nuptial, etc., Union, 76 Ala. 251, 52 Am. Rep. 325;

James v. Jellison, 94 Ind. 292, 48 Am. Rep. 151; State v. Towle, 80 Me. 287, 14 Atl. 195; Lowe v. Doremus, 84 N. J. L. 658, 87 AtL 759, 49 L.R.A. (N.8.) 632.

77 Sheppey v. Stevens, 177 Fed. 484.

78 Drury v. Hooke, 2 Ch. Oas. 176; Morrison v. Rogers, 115 Cal. 252, 46 Pac. 1072, 56 Am. St. Rep. 95; Johnson's Adm'r v. Hunt, 81 Ky. 321; Weeks v. Hill, 38 N. H. 199; Duval p. Wellman, 124 N. Y. 156, 26 N. E. 343, 34 N. Y. St. 964; Overman v. Clem-mons, 19 N. C. 185.

79 Wilson v. Wilson, 1 H. L. C. 538; McGregor v. McGregor, 20 Q. B. D. 529.

80 Walker v. Walker's Ex'r, 9 Wall. 743, 10 L. Ed. 814; In re Yoell's Est., 164 Cal. 540, 129 Pac. 999; Boland v. ONeil, 72 Conn. 217, 44 AU. 15; Stokes v. Anderson, 118 Ind. 533, 21 N. E. 331, 4 L. R. A. 313; McKee p. Reynolds, 26 Iowa, 578; French d. French, 177 Iowa, 682,157 N. W. 137; Loud v. Loud, 4 Bush, 453; Carey v. Mackey, 82 Me. 516, 20 Atl. 84, 9 agreement for the support of the wife during the separation. Some States, however, still preserve the stricter rule of the earlier common law that all separation agreements are necessarily invalid;81 and, doubtless generally in the United States, though the law is otherwise in England, so far as the agreement is executory it is revocable.82 It would also be held by some American courts, at least, that the wife's adultery would avoid L. R. A. 113, 17 Am. St. Rep. 500; Grime v. Borde v, 166 Mass. 198, 44 N. E. 216; Terkelsen v. Peterson, 216 Mass. 531, 104 N. E. 351; Randall v. Randall, 37 Mich. 563; Banner v. Banner, 184 Mo. App. 396, 171 S. W. 2; Speiser v. Speiser, 188 Mo. App. 328, 175 S. W. 122; Amspoker v. Amspoker, 90 Neb. 122, 155 N. W. 602; Galusha v. Galusha, 116 N. Y. 635, 22 N. E. 1114, 27 N. Y. St. 738, 6 L. R. A. 487, 15 Am. St. Rep. 453; Clark v. Fosdick, 118 N. Y. 7, 22 N. E. 1111, 6 L. R. A. 132, 16 Am. St. Rep. 733; Duryea v. Bhven, 122 N. Y. 567, 25 N. E. 908,34 N. Y. St. 205; Barnes v. Barnes, 104 N. C. 613, 10 S. E. 304; Jenkins v. Hall, 26 Oreg. 79, 37 Pac. 62; Commonwealth v. Richards, 131 Pa. St. 209, 18 Atl. 1007; Frank's Estate, 195 Pa. 26,33,45 Atl. 489; Singer's Estate, 233 Pa. 55, 81 Atl. 898; Goodrich v. Bryant, 5 Sneed, 325; Rains v. Wheeler, 76 Tex. 390, 13 S. W. 324; Baum v. Baum, 109 Wis. 47, 85 N. W. 122, 53 L. R. A. 650, 83 Am. St. 854. See also Moore v. Moore, 255 Fed. 497.

81 Allen v. Allen, 73 Conn. 54, 46 Atl. 242, 49 L. R. A. 142, 84 Am. St. Rep. 135; Foote v. Nickeraon, 70 N. H. 496, 48 Atl. 1068, 54 L. R. A. 554; Hill t;. Hill, 74 N. H. 288, 67 Atl. 406, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 848; Collins v. Collins, 62 N. C. 153, 93 Am. Dec. 606.

82 In Devine v. Devine, 89 N. J. Eq. 51, 104 Atl. 370, the court said: "In England the contract of a husband and wife to live apart is not restricted by law to the period of their mutual assent, and the contract can be specifically enforced; either spouse, if without wrong, may by force of the contract maintain a bill to restrain the other from an action for the restitution of conjugal rights. See Besant v. Wood, 12 Ch. Div. 605, and cases there cited. In New Jersey separation agreements have no such force. Here married persons may agree to live separate and apart from each other, because it is their privilege to live in that manner so long as they mutually desire to do so, and the husband's agreement to support his wife during that period of time is in harmony with his lawful duty; but an agreement of separation cannot confer on either party the right to live away from the other against the will of the other. Aspinwall v. Aspinwall, 49 N. J. Eq. 302, 24 Atl. 926; Mockridge v. Mockridge, 62 N. J. Eq. 570, 50 Atl. 182. By policy of the law the period for which they thus contract touching their separation is limited to the period of their future mutual assent to live apart. Accordingly, in the absence of wrongdoing on the husband's part, he may require his wife's return to his bed and board, and her refusal will not only constitute her an obstinate deserter, but will deny to her any right to support from him, notwithstanding the existence of an agreement wherein they have mutually stipulated to live apart. Moores v. Moores, 16 N. J. Eq. 275; Power v. Power, 65 N. J. Eq. 93, 55 Atl. Ill; Power v. Power, 66 J. N. Eq. 320, 58 Atl. 192, 105 Am. St. Rep. 653."