#### Marvin v. Marvin.

Divorce : Marriage under duress.

Where a man arrested on probable cause and without malice, for seduction, marries the woman to procure his discharge, he cannot have the marriage avoided on the ground of duress. The fact that he subsequently discovers that he could not have been convicted, will not alter the case.

APPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court in Chancery.

G. S. Cunningham, Judge.

This was an action brought by William H. Marvin against his wife, Edna Marvin, for divorce, on the ground that the plaintiff consented to the marriage contract under duress. The complaint alleges that he was charged with the crime of seducing the defendant, of which he was innocent, and that being under arrest upon such charge, and having been assured by the defendant’s father (acting for her), that the proceeding against him would be dismissed on his marrying her, he con.sented to the marriage as a means of procuring his release, and through fear as to the consequences of the criminal prosecution. The Chancellor dismissed the complaint, and the plaintiff appealed.

Ed. H. Mathes, for appellant.

The contract of marriage was voidable for duress. 2 Kent Com., sec. 4.53; 37 Me., 12S; 3 Sneed (Tenn.), 37; Stewart on Mar. and Divorce,-sec. 238.

Per Curiam.

Marriage: Duress. If a man lawfully arrested on process for seduction marries the woman to procure his discharge, he cannot have the marriage avoided 'upon the ground of duress. been convicted will not alter the case, if the prosecution was The fact that he subsequently discovers that he could not have *426upon probable cause, and not merely from malice. Bish. Mar. and Div. sec. 212; 2 Kent, 453; Honnet v. Honnet, 33 Ark., 156.

The prosecution of the appellant was upon probable cause.

Let the decree be affirmed.