There seems no reason why an agreement to resume marital relations where one of the parties has just cause for divorce should not be sustained, and it is generally held than an agreement in consideration of such resumption and of the dismissal or forbearance to bring justified proceedings for divorce,92 or in compromise of legal proceedings for non-support,93 is valid.

On the other hand, if there is no justification for divorce or separation, an agreement to continue or resume marital relations is certainly insufficient consideration and probably also unenforceable on grounds of policy.94

92 Phillips v. Meyers, 82 111. 67, 25 Am. Rep. 295; Poison v. Stewart, 167 Mass. 211, 45 N. . 737, 36 L. R. A. 771, 57 Am. St. Rep. 452; Reithmaier v. Beckwith, 35 Mich. 110; Duffy v. White, 115 Mich. 264, 73 N. W. 363; Mack v. Mack, 87 Neb. 819, 128 N. W. 527, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 441; Barbour v. Barbour, 49 N. J. Eq. 429, 24 Atl. 227; Adams v. Adams, 91 N. Y. 381,' 43 Am. Rep. 675; Sommer v. Sommer, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 434, 84 N. Y. S. 444. But where the promisor was co-respondent in the divorce suit the transaction was held against public policy. Gipps v. Hume, 7 Jur. (N. S.) 1301.

93 Bolyard v. Bolyard, 79 W. Va. 554, 91 S. E. 529, L. R. A. 1917 D. 440.

94 Miller v. Miller, 78 Iowa, 177, 35 N. W. 464, 42 N. W. 641, 16 Am. St. Rep. 431; Michigan Trust Co. v. Cha-pin, 106 Mich. 384, 64 N. W. 334, 58 Am. St. Rep. 490; Roberts v. Frisby, 38 Tex. 219, 220. Cf. Montgomery v. Montgomery, 142 Mo. App. 481, 127 S. W. 118. In Merrill v. Peaslee, 146 Mass. 460, 16 N. E. 271, 4 Am.

St. Rep. 334, a promise made in consideration of the plaintiff's return to her husband whom she had left, was held invalid although it was admitted that she had good cause for divorce. Three judges dissented and the case seems of doubtful correctness. It seems, however, to have been approved in Oppenheimer v. Collins, 115 Wis. 283, 91 N. W. 690, 60 L. R. A. 406.