‘ 2 FEDERAL Rnromnn.
vada, aged 60 years, do here, in the presence of Almighty God, take Sarah
Althea Hill, of the city and county of San Francisco, Cal., to be my lawful
and wedded wife, and do here acknowledge myself to be the husband of Sarah
Althea Hill.
"W1vr. Simnon, Nevada.
· "August 25, 1880." J _ l ‘ `
There was at the time of the commencement of this action, and is .
still pending and on trial, an action by the defendant herein, in the
state courts, for a divorce from the complainant herein, based on the
marriage claimed to be consummated by this contract.
The defendant demurred to the bill herein on the ground that it ‘
does not present a case for equitable relief.
  H. L. Barnes, for complainant. e _
Tyler at Tyler, for defendant.
Before Sawrnn and Skins, JJ.
Siwymz, J., (orally.) This is a suit in equity to declare null and .
void,. and to cancel, an instrument which is claimed to be a contract
of marriage between William Sharon, complainant, and Sarah Althea
Hill, defendant. The point of the demurrer interposed is that the
bill does not present a case for equitable relief. We have examined
the question fully, and we are satisfied, upon the principles estab-
lished by the various authorities cited by complainant’s counsel, that
it is a proper case for equitable jurisdiction. The bill presents a case
of forgery andfraud. The contract purports to have been drawn and
executed in pursuance of the provisions of section 75 of the Civil Code
of California. The Code of California makes a marriage contract
purely a civil contract for all legal purposes, like any other civil con-
tract. This supposed contract is alleged to be a forgery, and to be
fraudulent. It purports to be in writing, and to be signed by the
parties; andthe defendant claims, by virtue of it, to be the wife of
complainant, and to have an interest in his property, which is alleged `
to be of the value of several millions of dollars. There is no adequate
remedy at law for complainant against the claim set up under the al-
leged contract, and no means at law to annul it at the suit of com-
plainant. The defendant can choose her own time for enforcing her
claim under the alleged contract, even after the death of the other
party. Fraud has always been one of the principal heads of equity
jurisdiction.
The instrument in question is alleged to be a forgery and a fraud. _
If it is a forgery, it is of course a fraud also. The only parties who ap-
pear to have any personal knowledge of the facts, so far as indicated,
—-who, personally, know anything about this transaction,-—are the
two parties tothe alleged fraudulent contract. One is alleged to be
many years older than the other; the complainant being alleged to be
60, and defendant 27, years old. The elder, in the ordinary course of
nature, ZlS"II1OI'6' liable to die, and the contract, in such an event,
would be in control of defendant, without any testimony to defeat the