Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1906-12-28
IAN JlLT GIRL
IF SHE IS ILL.,.
Washington State Supreme Court Decides
Suit Against Consumptive-
Bargain Better Broken.

BALLARD, Wash. Dec. 24.-James
E. Zook, former mayor of this city, has
won the famous breach of promise suit
brought against him.
During his official term in 1904 Mayor
Zook and Miss Rosana Grover of Bal
lard We're betrothed. The latter had
the preparation of her wedding trous-
seau well under way when Mr.. Zook
suddenly broke the engagement, giving
as his reason therefor that his hancee
was afflicted with consumption. The
case attracted widespread attention, es-
peclally among the medical profession.
Bad Bargain Is Better Broken.
Miss Grover sued for breach of prom
Use, and in spite of his plea a Washing
ton jury gave the plaintiff judgment for
$4,000, which was cut to $4,000, how
ever, by the trial judge. An appeal was
taken and former Mayor Zook has just
won IN the supreme court. That trlbu-
nal has reversed the judgment of the SUI
perior court on the theory that a bad
bargain is better broken than kept, and
has directed the dismissal of the case.
1t was brought out in the first trial
that in breaking the engagement MI.
Zook informed Miss Grover that he be-
lieved it was for their own best inter
ests. as well as society in general, that
they should not marry. The fact that
both of his parents had died of consump-
ton was urged as a further reason for
their not marrying.
In an exhaustive opinion written by
Justice Milo A. Root of Seattle, the
court, among other things says:
In the domain of morals it is maxim
that a bad promise is better broken than
kept. Moral considerations must have Il
predominat1ng influence upon such a cues
ton confronts us. In fact. they
are the basis and the life of the law APP
plicable in case of this character.
Any person entering marriage, knowing
himself to be seriously afflicted with pull
monary tuberculosis, violates the spirit If
not the exact letter. of the statutes en-
ease. The same is true of one who mar
ries another knowing him or her to be
thus afflicted. An agreement which, II
executed, would thrwart the beneficent pur-
pose of such statutes, ought not to De
held binding.
State Is Most Concerned.
The paramount consideration involved in
the determination of this case is not that
appertaining solely to the parties to this
action although as to each of them 1t IS OF
great Importance. but it is as to the com
munity, the state, and to humanity III
general.
gagged to be married. The man is of
family several members of which have
died with pulmonary consumption. The
woman is afflicted with the same disease
to such an extent that it becomes necessary
for her to go to a distant portion of the
country to reenperate, which she does, re-
turning with the affection still upon her
and with SMALL if any, assurances of re
Gerry. Under these circumstances, if the
marriage were to be consummated, what
would be the natural consequences to be
anticipatedE
1t is a fundamental proposition that con
tract contravening the provisions or policy
of a public law is void or voidable.
''No one can stop himself from proving
facts which will show a contract to be
opposed to public policy. 1t having been
the privilege and as we believe, the moral
and legal duty of appellant to decline to
carry out the agreement, he cannot be held
responsible in damages for so doing.