Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
As a condition of remarriage, W made H execute a contract as listed in the casebook. H filed a bill that alleged the contract and also alleged that W required him to execute a joint will with her, by which each gave to the other all joint property except that if W died first, the estate in the hand of complainant was charged with the payment to W's parents, if living, $1,000 per year for ten years. Upon the death of the survivor the estate to be equally divided between heirs of complainant and parents of W. H seeks to revoke the agreement and declare the will void. H contends that the antenuptial contract is void 'being against public policy.' H alleges mistreatment by W and claims that W refused to sign joint income tax return and refers to his grandson as 'a little Bastard.' H contends that he still loves his wife but would like to regain the privilege of giving her something rather than being under a contract to give her all. W's answer listed the dates of their prior relations. They were first married on December 24, 1938, and first divorced in February 1949. They remarried in April 1949; that H filed a divorce action against her in July 1949, which was dismissed in December 1949; that H filed a second divorce action against her March 23, 1951, to which she filed answer and cross-bill, and she was granted a second divorce on June 4, 1951, and remarried in October 1951. W claims that the contract was proposed by H to induce her consent to a remarriage; that he had it prepared by his attorneys and it was 'made in consideration of and prior to their third marriage.' W contends that she has complied with her part of the contract and that H has refused to comply therewith, and she denied that the contract is void. She prayed for specific performance and for injunction restraining H from transferring or encumbering any of his property to defeat the instrument. The Chancellor held that the whole contract was void by reason of provision 5, which was against public policy and could not be deleted from other parts of the contract. A decree was entered dismissing both original and cross-bill and taxing H with all costs. H appealed claiming that the Chancellor erred (1) in refusing to cancel the contract after having found it to be void, and (2) in refusing to enter a declaratory decree. W claims that the Chancellor erred (1) in holding the antenuptial contract against public policy and void because of provision 5; (2) in holding the contract was not severable and paragraph 5 could not be deleted; (3) in refusing to grant specific performance as prayed; (4) in refusing to enjoin the H from revoking his will; and (5) in refusing to allow W's attorneys a reasonable fee for their services.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co