Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-01-09
COURT DECISIONS.
DIcESTED BY w. 3. MARTIN.
Exclusively for vIrginian-Pilot)
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
SANDERS ". COLEMAN.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
December Z. 1899.
A CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE IS
COUPLED WITH THE IMPLIED
CONDITION THAT BOTH OF THE
PARTIES SHALL REMAIN IN
THE ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND
HEALTH.
If THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH
A CONTRACT is PREVENTED BY
ILLNESS, THE BREACH is Elk
CUSABLE, ILLNESS BEING THE
ACT OF GOD.
This was an action brought by the
plaintiff, Coleman, to recover from the
defendant, Sanders, damages for
breach of his promise to marry her on
the 9th day of April. 1898.
The defendant addressed the plain
tiff, was accepted and the 9th day of
April, 1898, was fixed for the marriage.
Afterwards, under the advice Of his
physician. defendant asked for n post
ponement OF the marriage on account
of his physical condition. and sub
sequently, for the same reason, asked
the lady to release him. To this last
request the plaintiff returned no an
lower court gave Judgment for plaintiff
and defendant appealed.
The court says:
Under the expression 1.-THE act of
God" is comprehended all mlsfortunes
and accidents arising from inevitable
necessity which human prudence could
not foresee or prevent. Hence it is
held that Illness" being beyond the
power of man to control or prevent, is
the act OF God.
1t can no longer be doubted that. IL
the performance of n contract is rem
dered impossible by the act of God
alone. such fact Will furnish n valid
excuse for It's non performance, and
such stipulation will be understood
to be an inherent part Of every con-
tract This principle. 1t would seem,
should apply with peculiar force to
marriage contract. the performance of
winch, owing to causes subsequently
intervening and altogether independents
of any default OF the party, might re-
suit In consequences disastrous to the
life or health of the parties, or either
OF them. We hold, therefore, that n
contract to marry Is coupled with the
Implied condition that both OF the par
Ties shall remain In the enjoyment OF
life and health, and if the condition of
the parties has so changed that the
or health of either, a breach of the
contract Is eXcusable.
In the case at bar, the evidence
shows that there was n predisposition
in the ,.c.cndant's family to physical
trouble of the kind that was dcvel-
oped in him: That after his engage
ment with the plaintiff. and before the
time fixed for the marriage, the defen-
dant had, without fault on his part
developed and was suffering with n
grave malady, which had continued
and kept him constantly under the ad-
vice and treatment of physician up
TO The time of the trial. and that It
would be not only a wrong and injus-
ice to the defendant, but also TO the
plaintiff. for him to marry in his con-
dition of health. Marriage is assumed
IN law to be made for mutual comfort
Inc condition of defendant precludes
any hope OF mutual comfort. Our con-
ciusion on the law and the evidence is
That the defendant acted throurhout
with good faith. and that tho unhnnnv
circumstances In which he found him.
self justified the alleged breach OF HE
contract to marry the plaintiff. Re.
Versed.