| Show ComOn Com COl rt On is An 1111 Important ImperIal One Om and lc c Right R of Hus ius tid and ond ald Wife Wic to lo Enter Euler Into lua 1110 An Au Al Agreement of cf SeparatIon Would defeat the Iha Widows ot ci DoLe Sas as life Illa Supreme Court c court urt today tOlla handed r in the W case uso of ot Eugenia I I a ranor r Fred Irel Barnes Eget el tr rg of ot administrator W v l I I 4 Joust I or of W I D Palmer painter deceased ICil dit reversing 11 went I nt it f the th lower court coutt and aid audi favor of ot ott judgment nt catered In I i Jt t MM M Ida it M Palmer who wilD I f bold bOId IS l to her hor dower r rt lt her ber hUSbandS husband estate con g r II f 1 real property In thin tIlI L 1 f d at it about a bou t t IS 13 1 VL v very ry one iove roll 8 the tl right of ot a husband M to r 7 r into int an nn agreement of ot ani without w hout any an legal dl di I granted thereby defeat detent thu tho thurl rl fl rith to do i r in III II her husbands ir Tic T he 1 WIS was ns brought In III II tile the i 1 t i ut itro out fourt I by the till heirs of ot W V VJ ft i i J rd t t quiet their title tte Mrs Ir Ida M Id Min HI UIt f I a D i t 1 in h i Jott dOlI of ot f deceased In Jn the 1 1 a I ilem J was rendered In III Inu II III tz u I trial triai wont VOnt to n u j m 0 al at l the lit D on VUK Ug H 11 1 1 at nt Atlanta II l M Pain FIr PaIr r 1 und it his wife entered Cit ill eminent of o separation don and andr andI r I v I rights between them Were The re fr I mi rn mr r at nt that time wan r rd M 1 I ni 0 n he lie pae Jaw his wife a avi vi in i Atlant valued at att 12 i t 1 tJ i Ih h Il li Ii s as 35 I for Cor or I n F hir tor JC G 0 MO 0 O In cash rash and ant ur uri urt urd i d tt ht t One On of at tile llio con COll f of oC tho the settlement was ivas that the thu wife should Institute divorce proceed proceedings ings against t her husban l which would not be contested by him illIn provided how however ever evor she he should not ask usk sk for or all ull al The he divorce suit was WIS commenced but failed In III II court Mr II Palmer came to ll Utah lah at nt the time the Iho agreement was way en entered el brett terol Into before eforo his hi leath be became boo became came the th owner of o a some come valuable prop Into and before his death teath be put In a claim for tor her Interest In tilL the tl estate She Sim alleged that the tile agreement between herself and Ind him band bLInd Wil fraudulently obtained and hence null huh lul and ond void olt The lower court COUlt hold held by reason renson of ot the tho agreement she shu lm was UI perpetually estopped from set setting ting lag up p any an claim to any 11 part of ot the estate In tho decision of at the thc supreme court today which was vas written by Bartch and concurred In by 17 Iy Chief Jus and Ind Justice Ju McCarty It Is le held that such an 1111 11 agreement Is against public policy poll and void und even If It I It In Ina I 1 III a II legal Igal contract In Georgia It I cannot be ho enforced In II another If it It I Is IB In of the public policy of ot the tho latter later state uch a C contract as the theone theole one ole In this case Is IB one 01 Intruded to facil facilitate fael the tho securing of a I divorce and Amid Ind U II h contrary to the tho policy of the law Is b bold void old In Ill closing tile the opinion reads us its lS follows The record 1 corll In this case caso Is such as ns Impels one ono to the thought that this Is one on of the sad unfortunate cases COROS where when liquor that prince of ot evil blasted happy hearts and destroyed dt a happy home We Ve are of the opinion that the tw appellant Is not nol barred of ot her right of at Inheritance |
