New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-03-28
CEL|BACy PACT FALLS
Upset by Court on Plea OF
Wife for Support.
CONTINUED FOURTEEN YEARS
After They Welded Courle Knelt
and SWore Not 10 Fulfil
Marriage Contract.

lBy Telegram - The Tribune
Philadelphia. March 1.-THE Superior
Court of Pennsylvsnis to-day reversed the
ruling OF the lower court N one Of the most
remarkable cases in tho Jurisprudence Of
Pennsylvania II is a case in which a wife
seeks 10 force support from her husband
after living together for fourteen wears,
but during which time the marriage con
tract never had been fulfilled. IN iustihca-
hon OF her claim the Ntfo refers TO an
agreement made year before the marriage
IN which the man and the woman. upon
Bonded knee, svoro ~ each other that
while they would be married and legally
would he man and wife they Womb not fii-
NJ the marriage contract The lower court
held with the wife, bIt the higher court
reversed this, declaring that q women has
no rlght 10 read into the marriage contract
clause thst practically would annul II.
The reversal ir given in an equity suit
brought by Mrs. Irsne y Cunningham
against her husband. Clement Remington
n. Cunningham. prosperous business man
Of Philadelphia
Inc facts Of the case sre that the courla
were married December 4. 1925, and lived
continuously together until December -
1917. On that date the couple had = oisrre,
shd the husband left. In Justification OF
TINS Withdrawal the husband declared that
while they had lived together for fourteen
years the marriage contract had not boen
maze binding. lie. said this Vas AT the de-
sire Of his wife
Mrs. Cunningham admitted bor busbo,d,s
state OF celibacy and explained that vear
before their marriage they took an o,,h .,
celibscy.
1t MAS not taken before any officer Of
'ne Jaw she explained We we're in the
parlor at the time and We knelt down 70.
gethcr."
Now Fears Her Husband
During the hearing OF the case tho uif.
was asked II she was willing 70 take Mr.
Cunningham back Il fear him. she re-
pi'e"' think his love for me has disap-
peared owing TO the manner in which nc
comes home at different hours Of the night
rms has made me fear him"
MT Cunningham has a salary Of SIS d
week ana draws $4,000 a year in dividends
from different Investments
In passing on the case in the lower court
Judge Nssill ruled that Mrs. Cunningham
mad not been guilty Of any cruel and bar
oarous treatment. Regarding the ccIibacy
agreement, ne declared that so long as {
had been kept for fourteen years without
serious objection on the part Of the husband
the contract was binding He gave Mrs
Cunningham 500 . month for her sIppol..
Judge orlady, who wrote the opinion Of
me superior Court, takes an entirely differ
eht view, and declares Mrs Cunningham q;
not entitled TO support under her prcscn.
method Of procedure lie also calls attcu-
ilon to the fact that the entire matter Will
be cleared W at tho trial Of the divor,,
case brought by Mr.. CunnIncham The ST.
Ferior Court decision. in part. sayg.
II is not the policy Of the Law 10 cncour-
age inc living apart Of husband and wife.
WINE me marital relation exists iu force
AFTER the marriage contract is entered into
the rights. duties and obligations OF tu,
parties are fixed by law
me relation IL said 10 be III, parent
and not the child Of clyu society II IL
more than It civil contract il is an iusti-
tubon OF the STATE. n supprscdrs All other
contracts between On, paTtiC,. our whole
social system is based on the theory OF
husband and wli" living together as such
MIS-. cunning BAN does not seek nry-
GRANGE OF the contract of marriage. but az
scrts II 10 compel her husband TO main
tain her while living apart from him She
ihterpr"tS her duty in q way that In Op-
posed 10 universal law. the dictates II hu-
mainly and public policy, and this after
repeated rofusds To live IN a homo OF his
making She attempts 10 read into the
marriage contract "a clause which would
practically anuul II and defeat -. pur-
pose as d civil institution.