Barker v. Barker
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Pike. Heard before the Hon. Willlui L. Parks. The facts in this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. At the time the contract of January 4, 1897, was entered into between (1. W. Barker and Clara A. M. Hicks, there was absolutely no relation of trust or confidence existing between them. The parties could read, and the law will not permit the appellee to say she did not read the contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Pike. Heard before the Hon. Willlui L. Parks. The facts in this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. At the time the contract of January 4, 1897, was entered into between (1. W. Barker and Clara A. M. Hicks, there was absolutely no relation of trust or confidence existing between them. The parties could read, and the law will not permit the appellee to say she did not read the contract. She could have read it if she desired to do so, and is bound thereby.—Watts v. Burnett, 56 Ala. 340; (J-oetter v. Pickett, 61 Ala. 387. The appellee does not claim in…
1Opinion of the CourtDowdell, J.
The appeal in this case is prosecuted from the decree of the chancellor sustaining the sufficiency of respondent’s plea to that part of the complainants’ bill seeking the specific performance of an ante-nupti'al contract made by respondent with the father of-complainants. This contract is made an exhibit to the bill, and by its terms the respondent in consideration of five hundred dollars to be paid by G. W. Barker—the other contracting party, whom she had promised to marry,—the preamble to said contract reciting : “That whereas, a marriage is contemplated and 'intended to be had between…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pierce v. . PierceNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Moon's Adm'r v. CrowderSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Webb v. Webb's HeirsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- Gould v. WomackSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
- Graham v. . GrahamNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Rieger v. SchaibleNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
- Malchow v. MalchowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Merchants' Nat. Bank of Mobile v. HubbardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Levy v. ShermanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1945
- Endsley v. DarringSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.