
    William Riley, Appellant, v. Mary A. Riley, Respondent.
    
      Action to annul a marriage contract.
    
    There is no rule of law that will enable a husband to annul the marriage contract on the ground that his wife has a swollen tongue or inflammation of the bladder.
    Appeal by the plaintiff, William Riley, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 15th day of October, 1892, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Westchester Special Term.
    
      
      William, Riley, appellant, in person.
    
      Thayer & Small, for the respondent.
   Pratt, J.:

This action was brought to annul the marriage between plaintiff and defendant on the grounds that the defendant, at the time of the marriage, was physically incapable of contracting marriage; that such incapacity was known to her but unknown to him, and was fraudulently concealed from him by the defendant.

The parties intermarried on July II, 1890, and cohabited together until shortly before this action was commenced in June, 1892, a period of nearly two years. They had twins born to them in February, 1891, about seven months after their marriage, one of which died on the night of its birth, the other about three months later. This would seem to dispose of the cpiestion of defendant’s want of capacity, unless plaintiff expected her to have triplets.

As to the other grounds alleged by plahitiff, it is sufficient to say that they were not proven, neither the incurable defects nor their fraudulent concealment, and, even if proven, we know of no rule of law that will enable a husband to a2innl the marriage contract on the ground that his -wife has a swollen tongue or inflammation of the bladder.

We are satisfied that the court at Special Term made a proper disposition of the case, and that the judgment should be affirmed,. with costs.

Barnard, P. J., concurred ; Dykman, J., not sitting.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  