Marriage is considered by the law as the basis of society, and any contract which tends to interfere with marriage, or with the free choice by men and women of their wives and husbands, is looked upon with the greatest disfavor by the law. Contracts in restraint of marriage, or with the exercise of a free choice are void. A promise to marry no one but a certain person, when this is not accompanied by the mutual promises of the two parties to marry each other, is held void as in restraint of marriage.55 Contracts in restraint of a second marriage have been upheld. Marriage brokerage contracts are always held void as interfering with the freedom of choice,56 so also, are marriage gambling contracts void.57

Contracts between husband and wife for a present separation are binding, but one for a future separation is void.58 All agreements which in any way tend to aid in the securing of a divorce by collusion are void.59 Section 56. Agreements Lawful in Themselves, Which Tend to Further an Unlawful Purpose.

In connection with what has been stated in relation to the various classes of illegal contracts, it must be said in conclusion, that not only contracts to do acts which are themselves illegal, but also contracts to do acts lawful in themselves but which tend to further an unlawful purpose, are void. Many illustrations of this second class of illegal contracts have been given in the last eleven sections.

54 Wills vs. Sutton, 85 Ind., 70-74. 55 Lowe vs. Peer, 4 Borrows, 225. 56 Keat vs. Allen, 2 Vern, 588; 57 Chalfont vs. Payton, 91 Ind., 202. 68 Adams vs. Adams, 25 Minn., 72;

Stokes vs. Anderson, 118 Ind.' 533. 21 N. E., 331. 59 Hamilton vs. Hamilton, 89 I11., 349; Viser vs. Bertram!, 14 Ark., 266.