Page images

will. But as to real property, the wife? or the husband can not devise the same so as to deprive the other of his estate by curtesy or of her right of dower given by the statute; the husband's or wife's power of testamentary disposition being limited by the statutory rights which the surviving spouse may have in the property of the other.' Even though the wife has been empowered to

6 Laws of 1893, ch, 116, amend. the effect that a wife's testamening Laws of 1889, ch. 46, did not tary disposition shall not be con. change the law in respect to the strued so as to defeat the hus. right of the disposition by a hug. band's tenancy by the curtesy in band or wife of personal property lands is not such a limitation upon by will as against the claims of her testamentary capacity as will the surviving spouse.

- State v. defeat a devise of lands or real Hunt, 88 Minn. 404, 93 N. W. 314. estate to the husband, it being the

7 Smoot v. Heyser's Exr., 113 manifest intention of the legisla. Ky. 81, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 2401, ture thereby to protect the hus. 67 S. W. 21; Waters v. Herboth, band's tenancy by the curtesy and 178 Mo. 166, 77 S. W. 305; Rich- not to exclude him from her ardson v. Johnson, 97 Neb. 749, bounty. — Hair V. Caldwell, 109 151 N. W. 314; Neb. Rev. St. 1913, Tenn. 148, 70 S. W. 610, 8 $ 1265-1539.

8 Gaster V. Gaster's Estate, 92 See, ante, $$ 301-311, as to legal Neb. 6, 137 N. W. 900, denying disabilities imposed upon married rehearing 90 Neb. 529, 134 N. W. women.

235. Where a wife makes no provi. 9 See 88 251, 252, 310; In re Sil. sion for her husband in her will vey's Estate, 42 Cal. 210; In re he need not renounce the will in Frey's Estate, 52 Cal. 658; Hayes order to entitle him to on alf of V. Seavey, 69 N. H. 308, 46 Atl. the surplus personalty left by her, 189. as provided by Ky. Stats., $ 2132.- As to the disabilities of married Smoot v. Heyser's Exr., 113 Ky. women to make testamentary dig. 81, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 2401, 67 position of their property, see S. W. 21.

$$ 301-309. This rule applies whether the As to revocation of a will by husband was living with the wife marriage, or marriage and the at the time the will was made or birth of issue, see $8 535-539. not.-Spurlock v. Burnett, 183 Mo. In California the code provision 524, 81 S. W. 1221.

setting aside an estate not ex. The provision of the statute to ceeding fifteen hundred dollars

act as a feme sole, she can not by will dispose of all of her property to the exclusion of her husband. 10

$ 623. Husband or Wife May Consent to the Will of the Other :

General or Specific Consent. Although one spouse may have a statutory interest in the property of the other, yet the rule is that such right may be waived, the statutes generally providing that the husband or wife may in writing consent that the other dispose of his or her own property as if unmarried." At common law a general consent by the husband that his wife could make a testamentary disposition of property in which he had an interest was not sufficient, his consent was required to the particular will in question. 12 Such consent is not in the nature of a conveyance, but only a waiver of statutory rights.18 And consent to a particular will has been held not to be a waiver as to a subsequent will which made no change in for the use and support of the 305, 105 Pac. 444; Erickson v. Robfamily is such a limitation on tes- ertson, 116 Minn. 90, Ann, Cas. tamentary disposition as to vir. 1913A, 493, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) tually prevent the husband from 1133, 133 N. W. 164; Beals' Exr. willing away from his wife any. v. Storm, 26 N. J. Eq. 372; Stewthing where the estate does not ard v. Middleton, (N. J.) 17 Atl. exceed this amount. — Estate of 294. See, ante, $ $ 253, 254. Miller, 158 Cal. 420, 111 Pac. 255. During the period from 1865 to

The husband's statutory right 1868 a married woman could deto a distributive share in his vise away from the husband her wife's estate vests on her death in entire estate without his consent. case she dies intestate or no pro- -Bennett v. Hutchinson, 11 Kan. vision is made for him by her will. 398. --Hayes v. Seavey, 69 N. H. 308, 12 2 Bl. Com. *498; Rex

Bettesworth, 2 Strange 891; Cut10 Cunningham v. Cunningham's ter v. Butler, 25 N. H. 343, 57 Am. Exr., 140 Ky. 193, 130 S. W. 1075. Dec. 330.

11 Barry v. Barry, 15 Kan. 587, 13 Silsby V. Bullock, 10 Allen 590; Hanson v. Hanson, 81 Kan. (Mass.) 94.


46 Atl. 189.

[ocr errors]

the legacy in favor of the consenting party, but which made other dispositions as to the remainder of the property. A husband might freely waive his rights in favor of his children, but not for the benefit of others, or for some purpose he thought not deserving. In such a case the husband can elect to take the property which the law grants him, but he must then forego any claim under the will.14 There is authority, however, that under a statute which in general terms allows a husband or wife, with the consent of the other, to bequeath more than one-half of his or her property from the one so consenting, a general consent to will is sufficient, and it need not be to a particular will.16

[ocr errors]

8 624. The Same Subject: Nature and Effect of Consent.

The consent, in the absence of estoppel, must be in writing or an oral consent entered by record.16 Unless required by statute, the consent need not be attested by subscribing witnesses.17 No consideration is necessary to support the consent of a husband or wife to the disposition by the other of his or her property.18 Where a

[ocr errors]

14 Kelley v. Snow, 185 Mass. 288, 70 N. E. 89.

15 Keeler v. Lauer, 73 Kan. 388, 85 Pac. 541.

16 Steven's Estate, 163 Iowa 364, 144 N. W. 644.

See $ 253 as to consent or election.

Cas. 1913A, 493, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1133, 133 N. W. 164.

A written agreement between husband and wife by which each released to the other interests in real property is void, being contrary to section 3609, R. L. 1905. However, the consent of the husband to the will of the wife disposing of her real estate is not void, though given in the performance of a void agreement.-Erickson V. Robertson, 116 Minn. 90, Ann, Cas. 1913A, 493, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1133, 133 N. W. 164.

17 Neuber v. Shoel, 8 Kan. App. 345, 55 Pac. 350.

18 Keeler v. Lauer, 73 Kan. 388, 85 Pac. 541; Carmen v. Kight, 85 Kan. 18, 116 Pac. 231; Erickson v. Robertson, 116 Minn. 90, Ann.

valid consent has been given, after the death of the other such consent is binding although the consenting party was not named as a beneficiary under the will of the deceased spouse, such consent not being conditional upon receiving benefits under the will.19 The consent, when freely and fairly executed in compliance with the statute, is irrevocable. 20

The consent of one spouse that the other may devise or bequeath more of his or her property, than otherwise would be authorized by law, is not regarded as part of the will and need not be admitted to probate.21 But the mere signing by the survivor of a petition for letters testamentary is not such a formal consent as is required by the statute.22 Where there is no manifest intent to devise property which by statute goes to the surviving spouse, such survivor is not put to his or her election of taking either under the will or under the statute, but may claim under both.23

19 Hanson v. Hanson, 81 Kan. 305, 105 Pac. 444.

20 Chilson V. Rogers, 91 Kan. 426, 137 Pac. 936. See, ante, $ 254.

21 Keeler v. Lauer, 73 Kan. 388, 85 Pac. 541.

22 Estate of Frey, 52 Cal. 658; Tyler v. Wheeler, 160 Mass. 206, 35 N. E. 666.

A widow by applying for and receiving letters testamentary and by claiming the will, 18 not deemed to have renounced her right to one-half of the community which the law gives her, as such Interest is vested in her at her husband's death unaffected by any attempted testamentary disposi

tion on his part.—Estate of Frey, 52 Cal. 658. See, also, Morrison v. Bowman, 29 Cal. 337; Estate of Silvey, 42 Cal. 210; Smith v. Olmstead, 88 Cal. 582, 22 Am. St. Rep. 336, 12 L. R. A. 46, 26 Pac. 521.

23 Beard v. Knox, 5 Cal. 252, 254, 63 Am. Dec. 125; Morrison v. Bow. man, 29 Cal. 337, 348; Estate of Gwin, 77 Cal. 313, 19 Pac. 527; Estate of Redfield, 116 Cal. 637, 643, 48 Pac. 794.

Under the Kansas Gen. Stats., 1909, $ 9811, a husband may devise one-half of his estate, includ. ing exempt property, away from his wife where there are no children, even though she elects not

8 625. Antenuptial Agreements.

Generally speaking, the personal rights, duties and obligations arising out of the marriage relation are those fixed and determined by law, irrespective of any antenuptial contract to the contrary.24 As to property rights, however, the rule is different. Although property rights of the husband and wife are fixed by statute, yet by an antenuptial agreement either may waive rights in the property of the other thereafter to be acquired by marriage, or fix and determine their respective rights.25 Such agreements are not contrary to public policy and will be enforced in equity,26 unless contrary to some express statto take under the will.-Breen's It is held an antenuptial conEstate, 94 Kan. 474, 146 Pac. 1147. tract must be delivered or may be

But an attempt to will more declared void. – Slingerland V. than the allotted halt will not Slingerland, 109 Minn. 407, 124 operate to transfer or affect the N. W. 19. half interest to which the wife is The common law rule that an entitled. — Williams v. Campbell, executory contract between a man 85 Kan. 631, 118 Pac. 1074, affirm. and woman is invalidated by their ing 84 Kan, 46, 113 Pac. 800. subsequent marriage does not

24 Harrison v. Trader, 27 Ark. apply to antenuptial contracts in 288; Neddo v. Neddo, 56 Kan. 507, contemplation of marriage.-Can44 Pac. 1; Hair v. Hair, 10 Rich. nel v. Buckel, 2 P. Wms. 243; AnEq. (S. C.) 163; Powell v. Manson, drews V. Andrews, 8 Conn. 79; 22 Gratt. (Va.) 177.

Paine v. Hollister, 139 Mass. 144, 25 Smith V. Chapell, 31 Conn. 29 N. E. 541. 589; Becker v. Becker, 241 Ill. 423, See $$ 301-309 as to the right of 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 858, 89 N. E. married women to devise or be737; Unger v. Mellinger, 43 Ind. queath property. App. 524, 88 N. E. 74; Hafer V. See $$ 251, 252, 310, as to comHafer, 33 Kan. 449, 6 Pac. 537; munity property, rights of dower, Hanley v. Drumm, 31 La. Ann. curtesy and homestead. 106; Hosford v. Rowe (Hosford v. See $ $ 535-540 as to implied rev. Hosford), 41 Minn. 245, 42 N. W. ocation of a will by marriage, or 1018;

White v. White, 20 App. Div. marriage and birth of issue. (N. Y.) 560, 47 N. Y. Supp. 273; 26 Andrews


ws, 8 Conn. Deller v. Deller, 141 Wis. 255, 25 79; McGee v. McGee, 91 Ill. 548; L. R. A. (N. S.) 751, 124 N. W. 278. Moore v. Harrison, 26 Ind. App.

« PreviousContinue »