Ante-nuptial contract

A concontract entered into between a man and woman in contemplation of their future marriage, and in that case it is called a marriage contract. A wife may waive all right to any portion of the estate of her husband by an ante-nuptial contract, and this is binding on her unless fraud, advantage or collusion can be shown; Edwards v. Martin, 39 111. App. 145. An ante-nuptial agreement that the wife shall claim no right of dower does not deprive her of her distributive share in the husband's personal property: Pitkin v. Peet, 87 la. 268, 54 N. W. 215. A contract by which each agreed to make no claim to the property of the one dying first is void so far as dower is concerned, as it makes no provision in lieu thereof; Brandon v. Dawson, 51 Mo. App. 237. Conveyances made by one of two persons about to be married, usually called marriage settlements. They are usually made in contemplation of marriage, for the benefit of the married pair, or one of them, or for the benefit of some otber persons; as their children. They may be of either personal or real estate. Such settlements vest the property in trustees upon specified terms, usually, for the benefit of the husband and wife during their joint lives, and then for the benefit of the survivor for life, and afterwards for the benefit of children. Ante-nuptial agreements of this kind will be enforced in equity by a specific performance of them, provided they are fair and valid and the intention of the parties is consistent with the principles and policy of law; Barnett v. Goings, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 284, 44 Am. Dec. 766; Eaton v. Tillinghast. 4 R. I. 276; Whichcote v. Lyle's Ex'rs, 28 Pa. 73; Magniac v. Thompson, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 348, 8 L. Ed. 709; Neves v. Scott, 9 How. (U. S.) 196, 13 L. Ed. 102. Settlements after marriage, if made in pursuance of an agreement In writing entered into prior to the marriage, are valid both against creditors and purchasers; Reinhart v. Miller, 22 Ga. 402, 68 Am. Dec. 506. A conveyance by the husband or wife prior to marriage, which, if permitted, would deprive the other of his or her marital rights in the property conveyed. In Chandler v. Hollingsworth, 3 Del. Ch. 99, considering equitable relief against antenuptial agreements, Bates, Ch., held that the husband will be protected against a voluntary conveyance or settlement, by his intended wife, of all her estate, to the exclusion of the husband, made pending an engagement of marriage, without his knowledge, even in the absence of express misrepresentation or deceit, and whether the husband knew of the existence of the property or the husband, under like circumstances. A settlement after marriage conveying property in execution of an oral ante-nuptial agreement is void as against creditors; 2 De G. & J. 76. But they have been allowed; Hussey v. Castle, 41 Cal. 239; Brown v. Lunt, 37 Me. 423. By an oral ante-nuptial agreement a husband agreed to convey to trustees, when it should come into possession, a reversion belonging to his wife to be held on certain trusts, which under voluntary settlements would not be valid as against creditors. In a post-nuptial writing the husband covenanted to perform the oral agreement. He afterwards became bankrupt. It was held that, the one agreement being oral and the other gratuitous, the trustee in bankruptcy would not be ordered to perform; [1901] 2 Ch. 145. It has been held that marriage is sufficient part performance to make the contract binding; Nowack v. Berger, 133 Mo. 24, 34 S. W. 489, 31 L. R. A. 810, 54 Am. St. Rep. 6G3; Chandler v. Hollingsworth, 3 Del. Ch. 99. See Marriage Settlement.