Jangraw v. Perkins

• Decision Date: 05 April 1905
• Citation: 77 Vt. 375,60 A. 385
• Parties: JANGRAW v. PERKINS.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

60 A. 385

77 Vt. 375

JANGRAW

v. PERKINS.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Washington.

April 5, 1905.

Appeal in Chancery, Washington County; Rowell, Chancellor.

Bill by Oughtney Jangraw against Joseph Perkins. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill, the orator appeals. Reversed.

Argued before TYLER, MUNSON, START, WATSON, HASELTON, and POWERS, JJ.

R. M. Harvey and E. M. Harvey, for appellant. Heaton & Thomas and Frank S. Williams, for appellee.

POWERS, J. When this case was here on a demurrer to the original bill (Jangraw v. Perkins, 76 Vt. 127, 56 Atl. 532) it was held that the contract set forth therein was contrary to public policy, and void. The cause was remanded. The bill has been amended, and the sufficiency of the amended bill is now submitted to our determination.

The facts now shown by the record, so far as it is necessary to recite them, are as follows: Mary Jangraw, the unmarried minor daughter of the complainant, being pregnant, instituted bastardy proceedings against one Revett, and caused his arrest thereon. Revett gave bail, acknowledged that he was the father of the child, and offered to marry the girl. Mary and her father objected to the marriage and the discharge of the bastardy proceedings, unless Revett gave security for the support of the mother and child. Thereupon the defendant, a relative of Revett's, at Revett's procurement, executed the mortgage here in question, and agreed to deliver the same to the complainant upon the marriage of Mary and Revett and the discontinuance of the bastardy proceedings. Relying upon this mortgage, the complainant and his daughter consented to the marriage. The ceremony was performed, the bastardy proceedings discontinued, and the mortgage delivered according to the agreement. After a time Revett deserted his wife and child, and neglected and refused to care for and support them.

This is an entirely different case than was before presented. The new allegations relieve the contract of its objectionable features, and the rule which controlled the case as made by the original bill does not now apply. A marriage between parties situated as these were is especially favored and encouraged by the law; not only that the most appropriate recompense may be afforded, and the most effectual reparation may be made, but that the offspring may be made legitimate; and the contracts and undertakings of the seducer made in contemplation of such a marriage are valid and binding. Bish. Cont. § 511. In Wyant v. Lesher et al., 23 Pa. 338, John Lesher, one of the defendants, addressed the daughter of the plaintiff, and, she being pregnant, he refused to marry her, and a prosecution was instituted against him. After his arrest he proposed to marry the girl, and the plaintiff required from him security that he would treat her well and not desert her. He thereupon gave a bond, with surety, the condition of which was that "he treats her as a loving and affectionate husband ought to do, and not to desert her," the penalty being payable to the plaintiff for the use and support of the daughter and her heirs; and the father consented to the marriage. The action was on the bond. It was urged in behalf of the defendants that the bond was without consideration, and was against public policy, and void. Both points were ruled in favor of the plaintiff. "I see no more tendency," said the court, "in such a contract as this bond, to disturb the harmony of conjugal life than in a marriage settlement, or in ar...