Hinkle v. Hinkle
West Virginia Supreme Court
cited: • Stat. 32, Henry VIII, cap. 32; Freem. Co-Ten. and Par. §§'420-423, 440, 441, 446, 447; 66 N. Y. 37; 63 How. Pr'. 408; 28 Vt. 230 ; 13 Vt. 320 ; 2 Barb.
Read the full summary
cited: • Stat. 32, Henry VIII, cap. 32; Freem. Co-Ten. and Par. §§'420-423, 440, 441, 446, 447; 66 N. Y. 37; 63 How. Pr'. 408; 28 Vt. 230 ; 13 Vt. 320 ; 2 Barb. Ch’y 398 ; 19 Wend. 367 ; 13 N. J. L. 271; 2 Root (Conn.) 278 ; 16 Pick. 191; 14 Mass. 434; 12 Pick. 374 ; 6 Watts 106 ; 8 N. H. 93 ; 2 Lilly Abr. 356 E.; 62 Ind. 441; 2 Ohio St. 208; 12 Gratt. 260, p’t 3 syll., 284; 2 Gratt. 340 ; 8 W. Va. 29. cited: Curry v. Curry 10 Hun; Sully v. Folger 14 Ohio; 27 Ohio St. 50 ; 2 Paige 511. cited : 1 Bisk. Mar. Worn. See. 26; Id secs. 776-778; 8 Gratt.' 486 ; 11 Gratt. 437 ; 22 W. Va. 130.
1Opinion of the Court
Lucas,- Judge :
This case comes up on an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Pendleton county in a chancery cause, in which the appellant, Hannah' Hinkle, was complainant. The object of her bill was to have her dower assigned her in the real estate of her deceased husband, who she alleges died intestate, seized of certain real estaté, and left certain children as his heirs surviving him, who are named 'as defendants. The defendants for answer set -up an antenup-tial contract by which, it is' claimed, the plaintiff before her marriage had relinquished upon the consideration of mar-'…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pierce v. . PierceNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Beard v. BeardWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
- Forwood v. ForwoodCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1887
- Vance v. VanceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1842
3Cited by15 opinions
- Rieger v. SchaibleNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
- Gant v. GantWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1985
- Girard v. GirardNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1923
- Pajak v. PajakWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1989
- Bramer v. BramerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1919
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.