The sun., 1900-11-11
PENSION OF MRS. STEINWAY
GFOpGI'> FnDV NAY SUE Al
IUOi ,UH ND MARRY AGAIN.
wiri,~ >tcinv-r AZ eed to Give Her $1,000
aY,ar tor Tier support and tho children"
and u. EN'catJ Resisted Fa'nent hfter
sh, uad Ie,ume Mrs. Carl Rrchnas"'

u year tor Tier Su mort and tho fhldTens
and II. EN,cata Resisted Pa'ment Hfter
sh, I'ad Ie,ume Mrs. Carl HrcNnas"'
IT, the -tu oi MI Ottalic {. tock lHsIe I"
recov certain sums ut on-y Tor her support
nrd ,hpt of her ti.'a. els drcn by her former
hu.!ard G,org \ u'vay. under IN agree
mont md. lv iU.. at. william Stcinway, jus
,i"n rt,,h.n of 'h. SLprenc Court held yes
,,roav ,hst some Of the defeic.s 70 tho action
are insufficient
William stcinvay made a written agreement
with her on June "a. 1895. by which h" was 10
nay her $500 u year unit! July. 1895. ard $3.50
a year until her youngest child was q years
old providing shc did no. attempt 10 secure
support from his son. George, who was heh
her husband but living agart from her Ill"
agreement stated that Georg" 4. N'etnway'
sinc" deceased through infr 1ltl'' an" hh.iN . ~.
vo- tr1'', t. -upp.,rf her gld '.tIF 20. 'r''i.
one Of the d<fen, es e. tie present sui, g. re-
cover on this a .rcsulaH, Nht I Nl"lu"aF NailnI-
filed up 10 the time of hi- drdtl "a- t,at the
plHiutif AT the time fra dllsutl} "nny",l5i uer
Intention 10 get di,orc" iinneuAt'Il ir.ii
Ueurge \ Stcinwav and marry ,h"t ireNsu'
husband Carl Rerknare She did IL t''t be-
gin slit Tor divorce IN North )lh'Ii "a Ne l.
Vs. lsi,5, and there ft"r married 81" hhdtl"'
Jristoe Bs'hnn SAYS that she vas not D. M I"
disil0 her intention ~ tt' ,"s ,,. & Mi,'u,
probability that her iGte'tnhs w"iIl ia 81
ned ont when, tie ""nirtl Wat n'" ne ne
of the agreement the J!d.." "a > l. not ven
tskap for one Ina spn b-"sls" sle I'll not ish III
The case anv award Ol aim nv r.'l ~t e" ~
A. StaInNa.. he judge 81 : ts g. tn' d'Itic"
that ug0llr policy va, VI lated a. t.ai divorce
Was Granted not la-Ei her" De'a,-'sIe Nds not
q res dent of NrrtiI DIkuta
.Carefu!v aualyled what public policy was
violated that would us'i'y court In refusing
To- enforce mis- contract and thus visit the
evil eject II such deci-ion upon the innocent
children, A. Wet aS upon the plalNiiI, NE con-
tru,t having been plRde for their benent a.
well ~ herss II We assume, as We must 90
ION demurrer that the plalntin was engaged
70 be- Rrried 70 another before the death or
divorce of her husband. that shc and her then
husband conniv~d together To obtain fraudi-
lent divorce which wuvld not he upheld In the
Stat" where granted 80 here that the plain
III .fterward married her present husband.
to whom she was enga ced upon what the rv
based upon such a defence could The coI.'
reuse To- enforce q purely legal ngTeeiusft
entered into by plaintiff and William Stein
wa"
The further contention Of the defendant
e,r'Ut5cs that II the plaintiff has rlsht q
preyd! tNe 900 insurance ~ the li'" o'b"prEe
A S'aluway should he deducted from her lpdg-
nelt ne 'aIse William SteuHav raid SEQ.
premiums n II, the Judge ssys is not 4 Jpd,
be qH,h such claim ought 10 be dtyan7 ci
Astl.' tae aNe 'utors OF George 4. : elnwav,
W., received the money, and Not against hls