¶1 When the notes and mortgage were given, the plaintiff was the wife of the defendant; and the principal object of the agreement, in pursuance of which the notes and mortgage were executed, was to obtain a collusive divorce. Such an agreement is contrary to sound public policy, and consequently illegal and void. The marriage contract is not to be dissolved or determined at the will or caprice of the parties. If annulled, it must be in accordance with the requirements of the law, and in due course of legal proceedings. The whole agreement and proceedings of the parties in this case were a fraud upon the law, and if the facts had come to the knowledge of the court a divorce would not have been granted. The law will not aid either party in enforcing their illegal contract. The consideration of the notes secured by the mortgage being illegal and void, the action cannot be maintained. The principles of law governing this case were considered and settled in Sayles v. Sayles, 21 N. H. 312, and Weeks v. Hill, 38 N. H. 199.
¶2 Judgment for the defendant.