Case Name: Rudolph P. Domschke, Appellant, v. Annie Domschke, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-05-06
Citations: 138 A.D. 454
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rudolph P. Domschke, Appellant, v. Annie Domschke, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 454–464

Head Matter:
Rudolph P. Domschke, Appellant, v. Annie Domschke, Respondent.
Second Department,
May 6, 1910.
Husband and wife — annulment of marriage —fraud—false representations as to chastity.
A marriage although consummated will be annulled for fraud where the woman on inquiry"of her intended "husband stated that she had been the wife of a man then deceased, and that he was the father of her child, when in truth she ' had been his" mistress and the child was a bastard, if the plaintiff did not cohabit with her after the discovery of the fraud.
It is.true that such misrepresentation does not gó to the essentialia of the -mar - riage contract, as prior chastity is. not a necessary qualification for marriage, but chastity, if insisted upon, may be made an essential qualification.
Authorities on misrepresentation as to previous chastity collated and discussed, per Jenks, ,J.
Such misrepresentation may be grounds for an annulment of the marriage for fraud because, as a matter of law it may be material upon the question of consent, which is essential to the contract of marriage. .
Cabb and Bubb,'JJ., dissented, with opinions.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Rudolph P. Domschke, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the' defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county, of Kings on the 23d day of February, 1909, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the Kings County Special" Term, dismissing the complaint upon the merits.
George G. Baseh, for the appellant.
Isidore Wjlkind, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Jenks, J.:
This is an action by a husband to annul his marriage for fraud in that, prior to the marriage,, his wife represented to him that she had been a wife of a man then deceased, to whom her child was born, when in truth she had been that man's mistress and the child, was his bastard. The plaintiff pleaded that since the discovery of the fraud he had not cohabited with the defendant. It was conceded on the record that the parties had cohabited together for six years, subsequent to tlieir marriage and that there was no issue, whereupon the Special Term dismissed the plaintiff because he had not pleaded facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and he appeals. I think that the Special Term erred.
In Reynolds v. Reynolds (3 Allen, 605), Bigelow, Ch. J., says that it has been contended by some writers, especially the commentators on the civil law, that chastity is a quality that lies at the foundation of the contract of marriage and constitutes, one of its essential elements,'citing Voet, 24, 2, 15, which see, and 1 Fraser's Domestic Delations, 231. Montesquieu in his Spirit of the Laws (23, 21) writes that since the time of TJlpian a freeman was forbidden to marry a woman who had led a disorderly life. - (See, too, 1 Bishop Marr., Div. & Sep. §479 et seq.) But many decisions and many text writers have pronounced against annulment of marriage subsequent- to consummation on the ground of the false representation of the wife, previous to her marriage, that she was chaste. For examples, see Reynolds v. Reynolds (supra); Carris v. Carris (24 N. J. Eq. 516, 524); Allen's Appeal (99 Penn. St. 196); Smith v. Smith (8 Oreg. 100); Wier v. Still (31 Iowa, 107); Leavitt v. Leavitt. (13 Mich. 452); Shrady v. Logan (17 Misc. Rep. 330); Schouler Husband & Wife (§ 27); Bishop Marr., Div. & Sep. (supra).
The proposition of the Special Term must be that a false representation of such fact cannot sustain an action brought after the marriage and its consummation for an annulment on the ground of fraud.