All contracts which have for their object or tendency the divorce of married persons are opposed to public policy. Agreements to bring suit for divorce or to make no defence to such a suit, or having for their object such purposes, are unlawful.85 But a contract made pending an action for divorce agreeing on the alimony to be paid in case divorce be decreed, not intended or used for collusion or suppression of evidence, is generally held enforceable.86 Nor, it has been held, is a contract by which a husband agrees to pay a sum of money if he subsequently gives cause for divorce - not as a substitute for other redress by the wife but in addition to it.87 An agreement by a married man to marry another woman after a divorce not as yet granted from his present wife is illegal;88 but if a divorce has already been granted and remarriage is forbidden until the laspe of a specified time, a contract made before lapse of that time to marry after its expiration is valid;89 and though a promise to marry another after the death of the promisor's present spouse is against public policy,90 a contract to marry after the death of a divorced spouse, where only religious, not legal grounds prevented an immediate marriage is unobjectionable.91

* It was so held in Devine v. Devine, 89 N. J. Eq. 51, 104 Atl. 370. But in Randolph v. Field, 165 N. Y. App. D. 279, 150 N. Y. S. 822, it was held that neither the fact that prior to the making of the agreement the wife, unknown to the husband, had been guilty of adultery, nor that subsequently thereto she had been guilty of further adultery excused the husband from liability to make payments promised in a separation agreement. See also Hann v. De Freest, 178 N. Y. 8. 414.

84 Fearon v. Aylesford, 14 Q. B. D. 792; Sweet v. Sweet, [1895] Q. B. 12.

85 Moore v. Moore, 255 Fed. 497; Rowe v. Young, 123 Ark. 303, 185 S. W. 438; Loveren v. Loveren, 106 Cal. 509,39 Pac. 801; Hare v. McGue (Cal.), 174 Pac. 663; Smutser v. Stimson, 9 Col. App. 326, 48 Pac. 314; Cronan v. Cronan, 46 App. Dist. Col. 343; White v. Winter, 46 App. 'Dist. Col. 355; Stokes v. Anderson, 118 Ind. 533, 21 N. E. 331, 4 L. R. A. 313; Comstock v. Adams, 23 Kan. 513, 33 Am. Rep. 191; Edleson v. Edleson, 179 Ky. 300, 200 S. W. 625; Engel v. Schloss (Md.), 106 Atl. 169; Wolkovisky v. Rapaport, 216 Mass. 48, 102 N. E. 910, Ann. Cas. 1915 A. 809; Adams v. Adams, 25 Minn. 72; Blank v. Nohl, 112 Mo. 159, 20 S. W. 477, 18 L. R. A. 350; McDonald v. McDonald, 175 Mo. App. 513, 161 S. W. 850; Wilde v. Wilde, 37 Neb. 891, 56 N. W. 724; Davis v. Hinman, 73 Neb. 850, 103 N. W. 668; Cross v. Cross, 58 N. H. 373; Schley v. Andrews, 225 N. Y. 110, 121 N. . 812; Train v. Davidson, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 577, 47 N. Y. S. 289; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 1 N. Y. St. 529; Pierce v. Cobb, 161 N. C. 300, 77 S. E. 350, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 379; Stoutenburg v. Lybrand, 13 Ohio St. 228; Phillips v. Thorp, 10 Oreg. 494; Kilborn v. Field, 78 Pa. St. 194; Irvin v. Irvin, 169 Pa. 529, 32 Atl. 445, 20 L. R. A. 292; In re Mathiot's Estate, 243 Pa. 375, 90 Atl. 139; James v. Steere, 16 R. I. 367,16 Atl. 143,2 L. R. A. 164; Palmer v. Palmer, 26 Utah, 31, 72 Pac. 3, 61 L. R. A. 641, 99 Am. St. Rep. 820; Baum v. Baum, 109 Wis. 47, 85 N. W. 122, 53 L. R. A. 650, 83 Am. St. Rep. 854. A contract between a wife, after divorce, and her father-in-law by which she, in consideration of the father-in-law's agreement to pay her board and provide for her generally for her life, transferred to the father-in-law the control and custody of her child was not against public policy. Clark v. Clark, 122 Md. 114, 89 Atl. 405, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1163. 86 In Maisch v. Maisch, 87 Conn.

377, 379, 87 Atl. 729, the oourt said: "There is a difference of opinion as to the validity of contracts made after divorce proceedings have been independently commenced or determined upon, and where the agreement is in fact an amicable arrangement as to the amount of alimony to be paid in the event of a divorce being granted. In some jurisdictions contracts of this general character are permitted, and even favored. Pryor v. Pryor, 88 Ark. 302, 114 S. W. 700; Burnett v. Paine, 62 Me. 122; Badger v. Hatch, 71 Me. 562; Snow v. Gould, 74 Me. 540, 43 Am. Rep. 604; Warren v. Warren, 116 Minn. 458, 133 N. W. 1009; Randall v. Randall, 37 Mich. 563; Palmer v. Fagerlin, 163 Mich. 345, 128 N. W. 207 [Emerson v. Emerson, 120 Md. 584, 87 Atl. 1033; Werner v. Werner, 153 N. Y. App. D. 719, 138 N. Y. S. 633; Hammerstein v. Equitable Trust Co., 156 N. Y. App. D. 644, 141 N. Y. 8. 1065; Burgess v. Burgess, 17 S. Dak. 44, 95 N. W. 279]. In other jurisdictions such contracts are held to be contrary to public policy. Lake v. Lake, 136 N. Y. App. D. 47, 119 N. Y. 8. 686; Speck v. Dausman, 7 Mo. App. 165; Muckenburg v. Holler, 29 Ind. 139, 92 Am. Dec. 345; Hamilton v. Hamilton, 89 111. 349; Seeley's Appeal, 56 Conn. 202, 14 Atl. 291."

In Maisch v. Maisoh, supra, the Connecticut court held that though such an agreement might be invalid if made in Connecticut, yet if made in another State where it was valid, it might be enforced in Connecticut.

87 Bowden v. Bowden, 175 Calif. 711, 167 Pac. 154, L. R. A. 1918 A. 380.

88 Carter v. Rinker, 174 Fed. 882; Leupert v. Shields, 14 Colo. App. 404, 60 Pac. 193; Noice v. Brown, 38 N. J. L. 228, 20 Am. Rep. 388, 39 N. J. L. 133, 23 Am. Rep. 213; Williams v. Igel, 62 N. Y. Misc. 354, 116 N. Y. S. 778; Pierce v. Cobb, 161 N. C. 300, 77 S. E. 350, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 379; Johnson v. Iss, 114 Tenn. 114, 85 S. W. 79, 108 Am. St. 891; Leaman v. Thompson, 43 Wash. 579, 86 Pac. 926.

89 Buelna v. Ryan, 139 Calif. 630, 73 Pac. 466; Harpold v. Boyle, 16 Idaho, 671, 694, 102 Pac. 158, 165; Morgan v. Muench (la.), 156 N. W. 819. Cf. Haviland v. Halstead, 34 N. Y. 643.

90 Spiers v. Hunt, [1908] 1 K. B. 720; Wilson v. Carnley, [1908] 1 K. B. 729; Paddock v. Robinson, 63 HI. 99, 14 Am. Rep. 112.

91 Brown v. Odill, 104 Tenn. 250, 56 S. W. 840, 52 L. R. A. 660, 78 Am. St. 914.