Belden v. Munger
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL PROM. THE DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON OOUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellant. Tbe agreement set up in tbe complaint is against tbe policy of tbe law, illegal and void, and tbe Judge erred in refusing to charge tbe jury. Fol. 10, dkc ; Section, 562, Story - on Contracts; Dwrcmtvs. Fitley, 7 Price JR. 577; 9 Barn a/nd Cress, 200, 202.
1Opinion of the Court
■By the Court.
Emmett, C. J.
Tbe right of Plaintiff to recover in this action depends upon tbe following facts which *212appear from tbe record : It seems tbat one Lucius M. Beldeu bad commenced proceedings in tbe District Court, to procure a divorce from' bis wife Eoxa Belden. Tbat during tbe pen-dency of said action, be entered into an arrangement witb ber, through tbe parties to tbe present action, by wbicb be agreed, in consideration tbat she would not appear in said action for divorce, and set up a claim to alimony, tbat be would transfer to Henry Belden, tbe Defendant herein, four promissory…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Maisch v. MaischSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1913
- Speck v. DausmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
- France v. FranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Schmieding v. DoellnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881
- France v. FranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.