O'Dell v. O'Dell
Supreme Court of Iowa
1DissentSmith, J.
(dissenting) — I. It is manifestly impracticable to consider in detail all the matters contained in the majority opinion. Nor would any useful purpose be served by so doing. I concur in Divisions VIII and IX and, while favoring an af-firmance, I agree that whatever decision we make should not bar any appropriate remedy otherwise available to plaintiff for seeking a widow’s allowance.
Division I of the majority opinion briefly sketches the testimony bearing on plaintiff’s contention that the “prenuptial” contract was in fact executed after the marriage was consummated. Of course, this becomes…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Tayloe v. RiggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Stewart v. ToddSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- Fisher v. KoontzSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- In re the Estate of ThormanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- Scurry v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1909
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.