Graham v. Graham
33 F. Supp. 936, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2966 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract between married persons, entered into while they are living together, is void as against public policy if it attempts to alter the essential legal obligations and incidents of the marital relationship.
Facts:
- Sidney Graham (husband) and Margrethe Graham (wife) were married.
- At Margrethe's solicitation, Sidney quit his job at a hotel to accompany her on her travels, with her paying his expenses.
- Sometime later, Sidney expressed a desire to return to work.
- To induce Sidney not to return to work, Margrethe Graham signed a written agreement on September 17, 1932.
- The agreement stipulated that Margrethe would pay Sidney $300 per month until 'the parties hereto no longer desire this arrangement to continue.'
- The stated purpose of the agreement was to adjust financial matters between them and avoid future arguments over money.
- The couple divorced on July 11, 1933.
Procedural Posture:
- Sidney Graham (Plaintiff) filed suit against his former wife, Margrethe Graham (Defendant), in federal district court to enforce a written agreement for monthly payments.
- The Defendant filed an answer denying the allegations and raising several affirmative defenses.
- The Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the agreement was without consideration, beyond the contractual capacity of a married woman, and void as against public policy.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contract between a husband and wife, entered into while they are married and living together, that alters the essential obligations of the marital relationship, violate public policy and is therefore unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Tuttle, District Judge
Yes, a contract between married persons living together that attempts to alter the essential obligations of marriage is contrary to public policy and unenforceable. Marriage is a legal status in which the state has a vital interest, creating certain rights and duties irrespective of the parties' wishes. The law is well settled that a private agreement attempting to change these essential obligations—such as the husband's duty to support his wife or his right to choose the marital domicile—is void. This contract violates public policy by obligating the husband to follow the wife's travels, contrary to the legal principle that the wife follows the husband's choice of domicile. Furthermore, it impliedly releases the husband from his duty of support by providing him with a fixed monthly income from his wife. Allowing such contracts would open an endless field for controversy and destroy the flexibility necessary in marital life. This situation is distinct from separation agreements made in contemplation of an immediate separation, which are generally permissible.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional legal view of marriage as a status with state-defined obligations, rather than a purely private contract subject to modification by the parties. It establishes a strong public policy limitation on the freedom of contract within a marriage, invalidating agreements that attempt to bargain over core marital duties while the couple is cohabiting. The court's distinction between these agreements and valid separation agreements is critical, as it carves out an exception for contracts designed to dissolve the marital relationship rather than redefine it. This precedent serves to prevent litigation over the intimate, personal aspects of a marriage and preserves the state's interest in the institution.
Unlock the full brief for Graham v. Graham