Foy v. Foy

[335]

BISHOP, J. pro tem.

One of the causes for which a marriage may be annulled is stated in section 82 of the Civil Code to be: “That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud. ’ ’ But “... it is not every fraud which will serve as an excuse for having a marriage annulled; only those frauds which are vital to the marriage relation are sufficient causes.

(Mayer

v.

Mayer,

(1929) 207 Cal. 685 [279 P. 783];

Marshall

v.

Marshall,

(1931) 212 Cal. 736 [300 P. 816, 75 A.L.R. 661]; notes, 14 A.L.R. 121 and 75 A.L.R. 663.)”

(People

v.

Godines,

(1936) 17 Cal.App.2d 721, 723 [62 P.2d 787, 788].) It would seem that the chastity of the wife, prior to marriage, is not vital to the marriage relation, for it has been held that a false representation, made by the wife before marriage, that she had not been unchaste is not a ground for annulling a marriage.

(Wilcox v. Wilcox,

(1916) 171 Cal. 770, 772 [155 P. 95, 96];

Sutton

v.

Sutton,

(1936) 12 Cal.App.2d 355, 356 [55 P.2d 261, 262] ; and see

Barnes

v.

Barnes,

(1895) 110 Cal. 418, 421 [42 P. 904, 905]; and

Vileta

v.

Vileta,

(1942) 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 796 [128 P.2d 376].)