Brooks

The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment which denied him any portion of the $3,630 he sought to recover from his wife, the defendant. The theory of plaintiff’s complaint was that the money had been paid under a contract void because against public policy, the contract being that the parties would get married, the defendant would continue to render to the plaintiff the domestic and nursing services she had been rendering as his housekeeper and practical nurse, and the plaintiff would continue to pay her the $80 a month he had been paying her for those services. The marriage and the agreement to pay defendant $80 per month, according to the complaint, were not plaintiff’s proposals but came about by a threat on the defendant’s part that she would leave him unless he married her, and that when she left he would be helpless because he could not get another-nurse. He “reluctantly” yielded to the solicitations of the defendant. Division Two of this court had this complaint under review in Brooks v. Brooks (1941), 48 Cal.App.2d 347 [ 119 P.2d 970 ], and found that its allegations stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action..

The evidence amply sustains the trial court’s…