Bruce v. Bruce

DOOLING, J.

This appeal is taken from a judgment denying the plaintiff an annulment of his marriage to defendant. The complaint charged that the marriage was induced by the fraud of the defendant in that she promised that upon her marriage she would leave her mother’s home and live with plaintiff without any intention of performing her promise, and that in fact she had persistently refused to live with plaintiff in the home provided by him. The defendant defaulted and after hearing the evidence produced by plaintiff the court entered the judgment here under attack. The defendant is not represented on this appeal, but the district attorney of Alameda County has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the judgment.

It is settled law in this state that a marriage may only be annulled for fraud-if the fraud relates to a matter which the state deems vital to the marriage relationship.

(Bragg

v.

Bragg,

219 Cal. 715, 720 [28 P.2d 1046];

Marshall

v.

Marshall,

212 Cal. 736, 738-739 [300 P. 816, 75 A.L.R. 661] ;

Mayer

v.

Mayer,

207 Cal. 685, 695 [279 P. 783];

Foy

v.

Foy,

57 Cal.App.2d 334 [134 P.2d 29].) Under this rule our courts have held that the following were sufficient to justify an annulment of the marriage: the fact, concealed from the husband at the time of marriage, that the wife did not intend to have sexual relations with him

(Millar

v.

Millar,

175 Cal. 797 [167 P. 394, Ann. Cas. 1918E 184, L.R.A. 1918B 415]); the fact that the wife concealed from the husband that at the time of their marriage she was pregnant by another man

(Hardesty