Show ILl l PALMER CASE SETTLED I i I t I Wife Entitled to Widows Interest J I In-terest in Estate I 4 I i AGREEMENT HELD TO BE VOID I i J I11t4 if Contract to Separate Is Against It H Public Policy I 1 f j 1 Husband and Wife Cannot Legally I Form Compact to Facilitate Procuring Pro-curing of Divorce 1 rf i i f In accordance with the remittltur from the Supreme court reversing the 1 decision ot the lower court In the case i G of Euglnla Palmer Egbert Palmer 1 Fred Barnes and J AV Houston administrator 1 ad-ministrator of the estate of W D Palmer deceased vs Ida M Palmer 1 I t Judge Hall yesterday rendered a decree 1 t In favor of the defendant 1 TO KELP GET DIVORCE l The case which Is now finally settled has been n very Important one It has decided the question of whether a husband 1 hus-band and wife can enter Into an agreement agree-ment to separate The original complaint a com-plaint recited among other things that the deceased W D Palmer and the defendant de-fendant Ida M Palrnor Intermarried on December 27 1SS6 and lived as husband i hus-band and wife until about April 2i 1S99 I when Irrcconeiablc differences arose between 11 be-tween them In August 1S03 at Foul ton Ga the two entered Into a contract con-tract with the Intent of facilitating the procuring of a divorce By the contract con-tract the wife was given real estate In Atlanta Ga of the value of 12000 subject sub-ject to an incumbrancc of JDOOO furniture 9 furni-ture of the value of 3000 and SGoOO In cash This contract It was held by the Supreme court wns against the public policy of the State and the opinion further held that tho defendant has I never released or relinquished her Interest In-terest In the estate of the deceased I i AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY At the first trial of the case the court entered a decree quieting the title to the 3 property In the plaintiffs and perpetually per-petually l estopped and enjoined the defendant de-fendant from setting up any claim to I any part thereof The case was thereupon there-upon appealed by the defendant to the I Supreme court where it was held that II the contract between the parties was 1 In contravention of the public policy of the State of Utah and consequently 1 void and the case was remanded By j the order of Judge Hall yesterday the defendant Is entitled to a widows Interest li In-terest In the estate of the decedent which consist principally of real property I prop-erty In this county of the value of about I 550000 According to the law of this Ii State the widow Is entitled to 5000 and l ouehalf of the remainder of the estate I 1 |