Rowell v. Barber
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dodge county: MaetiN L. Luece, Circuit Judge. On July 4, 1888, the plaintiff and one John S. Eowell were married. Afterwards and on the 19th day of April, 1892, the plaintiff and said Rowell entered into a contract in writing reciting therein that prior to their marriage they had made an oral antenuptial contract and setting forth said contract in the writing made and signed after their marriage.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dodge county: MaetiN L. Luece, Circuit Judge. On July 4, 1888, the plaintiff and one John S. Eowell were married. Afterwards and on the 19th day of April, 1892, the plaintiff and said Rowell entered into a contract in writing reciting therein that prior to their marriage they had made an oral antenuptial contract and setting forth said contract in the writing made and signed after their marriage. This contract set out in great detail all the alleged provisions of the oral antenuptial agreement and made the same a part of the agreement so made…
1Opinion of the CourtNeewiN, J.
The facts in this case are substantially undisputed. The first and important question presented is whether the so-called antenuptial contract is void. There is no dispute but that it was orally made before marriage and reduced to writing, signed, sealed, and acknowledged after, marriage. The contract purports to have been made in consideration of marriage, and the first question arises as to whether it is void under subd. 3, sec. 2301, Stats. (1898), which provides that every agreement, promise, or undertaking made upon consideration of marriage except mutual promises to marry shall be void…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Reade v. LivingstonNew York Court of Chancery · 1818
- Ludington v. PattonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Rowell v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Brandeis v. NeustadtlWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Rieger v. SchaibleNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Pfingsten v. PfingstenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
- Bratt v. PetersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Henrikson v. HenriksonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Mead v. Leo Sheep Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1925
- Fischer v. DolwigNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1918
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.