
    Josephine K. Clark, Respondent, v. Julius Fleischmann et al., Appellants.
    
      Clark v. Fleischmann, 185 App. Div. 944, affirmed.
    (Argued February 27, 1919;
    decided March 18, 1919.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 9, 1918, which affirmed an. order of Special Term denying a motion by defendants for judgment on the pleadings. The action was based on a contract between husband and wife. It is claimed that this contract was void and against public policy because made for the purpose of stimulating or procuring a divorce and contrary to the spirit of section 21 of the Domestic Relations Law which provides that a husband and wife cannot contract to alter or dissolve a marriage.
    The following questions were certified: “1. Is the agreement set forth in paragraphs II and IV of the first and second alleged causes of action of the amended complaint and attached to said amended complaint as Exhibit A, valid or enforcible? 2. Does the first alleged cause of action set forth in the amended complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action? 3. Does the second alleged cause of action set forth in the amended complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action? ”
    
    
      Gustav Lange, Jr-., for appellants.
    
      Arthur E. Sutherland and Frank S. Cobwrn for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; first question certified not answered; second and third questions answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.  