Story Case

Elizabeth Hills, a woman of approximately thirty-five years, agreed with George G. Johnson, an old man of seventy-one, that she would keep house for him, never marry, and take care of him as he became older, in return for his promise to give her one-hundred acres of land, by his will. This agreement was put in writing, and was effective in so far as the formalities were concerned.

Several months later, Elizabeth Hills married and left the employ of Johnson. He brought suit against her for breach of her contract. Should he be allowed to recover?

Ruling Court Case. Jerome Vs. Bigelow, Volume 66 Illinois Reports, Page 452; Volume 16 American Reports, Page 597

Jerome and Bigelow were both physicians, and were practicing their profession as specialists in the City of Chicago. In May, 1870, they entered into an agreement by which Bigelow was to retire from practice, and his practice was to be taken over by Jerome. It was agreed that Jerome should be permitted to practice in the name of Bigelow, to personate him, to pass among strangers as Bigelow. For this, Jerome agreed to pay Bigelow the sum of $10,000 a year for ten years, Bigelow, on his part, agreeing never to enter the practice in the city again, nor to interfere with Jerome's use of his name. A few years passed and he returned, beginning practice in the same vicinity. This was a suit by Jerome to have Bigelow restrained from so doing.

Bigelow entered the defense that the contract was void, as against public policy, and, therefore, the Court would not give aid to either in enforcing the contract.

Decision

The practice of medicine is such a vital and important profession, that every person who must call upon the profession is entitled to know with whom he deals, and to know who looks after his physical welfare. So, any agreement by which the public is barred from this important information is against public policy and void.

Mr. Justice Scott said in part: "It may be that Jerome is as good a physician as Bigelow, and quite as skillful in the treatment of diseases. But that is not the question. Persons in need of medical aid are entitled to the physician of their choice, and he who personates another in that regard and thus imposes on that unfortunate class of persons, commits a great wrong. A contract that licenses and permits such practices is absolutely vicious, and a court will never enforce it".

Accordingly it was held that the contract would not be enforced.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

An agreement contrary to public policy is void and unenforcible. An agreement is said to be contrary to public policy when the result of such an agreement is evil or immoral in its nature, even though the acts contemplated are not expressly forbidden by any statute or rule of the common law. An agreement which tends to corrupt men in public office, an agreement which tends to perversion of justice, an agreement which tends to encourage litigation, an agreement which tends to increase immorality, an agreement in unreasonable restraint of trade, an agreement which restrains marriage, are all examples of contracts void because they are contrary to public policy. In the Story Case, the agreement was in restraint of marriage. The public is interested in having all marriageable persons to marry; and, although there is no way to compel them to do so, any agreement preventing the free exercise of this important relation is evil in its tendency, and, therefore, void.