OCR Text |
Show t J, . j . C. W-.M- ' - ' ' I . l.-r - 1 - 1 111. 1 I - -... An Important question Is decided In an opinion by Jui e' Eartch in the case cf EujenU Talmer. Egbert Talmer, Fred Earnes and J. W. Houston," administrator admin-istrator of the estate of V.'. D. Falmer, deceased, respondents, vs. Ida M. Palmer, Pal-mer, appellant, handed down In the Supreme Su-preme court today. The opinion holds that an agreement between husband and wife to separate, or to facilitate the securing of a divorce is contrary to the policy of the law and la void. "The law," It says, "Is well settled that courts will refuse to enforce en-force any contract, as against public policy, which is Intended to promote the dissolution of the marriage status. When that status is created the rights Involved are rvt merely private but they are also of public concern. The social system and welfare of the State having their, foundation in the family, the State is an interested party and, therefore, the marriage relations cannot can-not be dissolved except through the sovereign sov-ereign power." " ; ' The suit, which is an action in equity, was brought by the heirs and the administrator ad-ministrator of the estate of W. D.- Palmer, Pal-mer, deceased, against the wife of the deceased, Ida M. Palmer, to quiet title to certain property . owned . by W. D. Palmer in his lifetime.: j The story leading up to the action. In brief is as follows: "The deceased and the defendant were married in Indiana in 1888, and moved to Atlanta, Ga. . In 1899 irreconcilable differences arose between them, by reason rea-son of alleged drinking bablts contracted contract-ed by the husband, and a contract of separation was entered into by the couple. cou-ple. In accordance with the contract the wife received in real estate, furniture furni-ture and cash about $16,500, the husband at the time not being worth to exceed $30,000. - . ' - W. D. Palmer then came to this State, where he accumulated a fortune of between be-tween $40,000 and $50,000 before his death In 1&01.- He died intestate. The plaintiffs or respondents In this suit then brought an action in the Third District court and Judge Hall entered a decree quieting title to the property of the deceased In the plaintiffs favor and held that the defendant is perpetually enjoined from setting up any claim to any part thereof. The defendant then appealed the case to the Supreme court. The opinion, which is concurred In by Justice McCarty and by Chief Justice Baskin. : reverses the Judgment of the lower court, with costs, and directs that the decree be set aside and that & decree de-cree be entered in favor of. the appellant. appel-lant. .. . |