The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1924-01-24

@AS a INiel general RUE all contracts
contrary to public policy are void
College Club Interested
a delegation of members from the
Women's college club and from the
teachers of the city were present as a
good deal of interest centered in the
meeting and upon the action taken.
As the board acted unanimously and
without loss of time upon the recon-
mendation of their. legal adviser the
visitors .contented themselves with
quietly thanking the board.
In the opinion of Mr.. Cavanaugh, an
interesting Milwaukee case in which
married school teacher sued the
school board for discriminating with
her and breaking a contract to teach
because she had married. The plant
iff teacher won her suit and was rein
stated
Opinion is Given in Full.
The opinion of the assistant city
attorney upon the married women
teacher question reads as fellows:
: Csc p8 1921
al CT. toolns,
Superintendent of Schools,
Kenosha, Wis.
Dear Sir:
In answer to your inquiry as TO the
legality and validity of the followire
clauses contained in the public schools
of Kenosha, Wis, teachers contract:
ut is farther agreed that if say
teacher shall be married before the
signing Of this contract and shall fail
to sign her married name, such act
shall render this contract null and
void
which provisions are inserted IN said
contract in accordance with Section II
of Article ~ of the rules and regula-
items of the Board of Education,
which reads as follows:
"No additional married women shall
be employed as regular class room
teachers. but they may be employed
as substitute teachers. This rule shall
not apply to teachers, already regu-
larly employed on the force. In case
any teacher is married and fails to
sign her contract with married name,
or if she marries after signing her
contract the contract shall thereby
be automatically cancelled"
My opinion is as follows:'
Contrary to Public Policy.
AS a general rule any agreement
which restrains the freedom of parties
to marry and the freedom of choice in
marrying, or impairs the sanctity and
security Of the marriage relation, or
is otherwise in derogation of such re-
lations, is contrary to public policy.
As a further general rule all contracts
contrary to- public policy are void.
There is no provision, either by stat
ute or at common law, which enjoins
upon any particular person the duty
to marry To marry or not to marry
is left to the free choice of all who are
eligible to marriage. As The law does
not oblige anybody to marry, but
leaves a free agency in that respect to
every member of the community an
agreement in restraint of marriage is
not an agreement to omit what the law
commands, but an agreement to omit
what the law leaves to every ones
choice to omit if he pleaseS. N---
theIcss, the fact that the law does not
punish celibacy is deemed to be an in
sufficient reason for upholding agree
mems not to marry.
Marriage Upheld by Court.
The court it is declared, should not
countenance an agreement whereby
person absolves himself from even a
moral duty to society. Marriage is re-
garded as a duty of the greatest inn
portance to society, because the failure
to marry must result either in inn
morality or depopulation.
1t is true that since TO omit to marry
is not illegal, it may be difficult to see
any good reason for denouncing such
a contract as illegal in the sense Of
violating any law, or Of placing par
ties who may have entered into it
outside the pale of the law. 1t is
clear, however, that no legal right can
be founded on the promise and no
remedy afforded for its breach In
order that the agreement may be in-
valid it is not necessary there shall
be positive prohibition II has been
said that if the condition is Of such
nature and rigidity in its requirement.
rs to operate rs a probable prohibit
zion. it is void.
Restraint of Marriage Involved.
The most that can be said is shat
t IS only contracts in general re-
.straint Of marriage that are void on
grounds Of public policy. Although