Burgess v. Burgess
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Brule couDtv, Hon. Frank B. Smith, Judge. Action by Agnes Burgess against Myron E. Burgess. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Any agreement that the defendant in a divorce suit will not make a defense, or having for its object a dissolution of a marriage contract or design to promote and facilitate a divorce is void, because opposed to the policy of the law, and any promise founded on such agreement is also void.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit court, Brule couDtv, Hon. Frank B. Smith, Judge. Action by Agnes Burgess against Myron E. Burgess. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Any agreement that the defendant in a divorce suit will not make a defense, or having for its object a dissolution of a marriage contract or design to promote and facilitate a divorce is void, because opposed to the policy of the law, and any promise founded on such agreement is also void. Sayles v. Sayles, 21 N. H., 319; Cross v. Cross, 58 N. H., 373; Viser v. Bertrand, 14 Ark., 267; Stontenberg v. Lybrand, 13 Ohio St., 228;…
1Opinion of the CourtHaney, P. J.
This is an action to compel the specific performance of a contract,to convey real property. The plaintiff in her complaint states her cause of action as follows:
“(I) That at the times hereinafter mentioned the defendant was lawfully possessed of the following real estate, situated in the county of Brule, in the state of South Dakota, to wit: The southwest quarter of section 1, township 104 north, range 68 west fifth P. M., under and by virtue of a valid and subsisting entry of said land made by the defendant under the timber culture laws of the United States; that defendant was duly qualified…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Sinkler v. SinklerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1923
- Maisch v. MaischSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1913
- Nelson v. NelsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1946
- Wiemer v. WiemerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- Kull v. LoschMichigan Supreme Court · 1950