Majority
p. 575Josephine K. Clark, Respondent, v. George B. Lester, Appellant. (Argued February 27, 1919; decided March 18, 1919.)
Headnote
Clark v. Lester, 185 App. Div. 944 , affirmed.Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 9, 1918, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion by defendants for judgment on the pleadings. The action was based on a contract between husband and wife. It is claimed that this contract was void and against public policy because made for the purpose of stimulating or procuring a divorce and con
p. 576
trary to the spirit of section 21 of the Domestic Relations Law which provides that a husband and wife cannot contract to alter or dissolve a marriage.
The following questions were certified: “ 1. Is the agreement set forth in paragraph I of the amended complaint valid or enforcible? 2. Does the amended complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action? ”
Gustav Lange, Jr., for appellants.
Arthur E. Sutherland and Frank S. Coburn for respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs; first question certified not answered; second question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.
Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.