Corcoran v. Corcoran
| Decision Date | 14 May 1889 |
| Docket Number | 12,410 |
| Citation | 21 N.E. 468,119 Ind. 138 |
| Parties | Corcoran v. Corcoran |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Dearborn Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed, with costs.
C. S Jelley, D. H. Stapp, G. M. Roberts and C. W. Stapp, for appellant.
L. T Michener and J. H. Gillett, for appellee.
This was an action by Martin Corcoran against his wife, Mary Corcoran, to recover damages for the alleged breach of an executory contract. The following are the material facts, as they appear in the complaint:
In January, 1871, the plaintiff was the owner of a house and lot in the city of Aurora, Indiana, which was of the alleged value of $ 2,500, and of the rental value of $ 200 per annum. He avers that his wife proposed to him that if he would convey the above mentioned property to her she would support and maintain him during his natural life, and that in consideration of the promise and agreement above mentioned he executed a warranty deed conveying the property to her in fee simple. After receiving the conveyance the defendant treated the plaintiff with great cruelty, compelled him to sleep on the floor, and otherwise mistreated him, so that he was constrained to seek shelter elsewhere. He avers in his complaint that since some time in the year 1879 the defendant has refused "to maintain, support or keep plaintiff, or to furnish any part or portion of his support, and still refuses so to do, so that plaintiff has been compelled to and does, maintain and support himself, though in poor health." He charges that his maintenance and support are reasonably worth four dollars a week; that he has sustained damage in the sum of $ 1,500 on account of the default of his wife in the respects mentioned above, which sum he prays may be decreed to be a lien upon the land. The court rendered a personal judgment against the defendant, and entered a decree according to the above prayer. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
A conveyance of property from a husband to his wife is presumably a voluntary settlement, or provision for her benefit, and if it is reasonable it will be upheld against the husband and his heirs, unless obtained by fraud or undue influence. 1 Bishop Law of Married Women section 754; Harris Contracts Married Women, section 441.
While the conveyance above mentioned was, therefore, presumably valid and binding, the executory contract of the wife to support her husband was void. Barnett v. Harshbarger, 105 Ind. 410, 5 N.E. 718. The law makes it the duty of the husband not only to support himself, but his wife and children as well, and we know of no rule of law or of public policy which gives any countenance to an attempt by a husband to abdicate the duty which the law casts upon him, and impose it as an obligation upon his wife through the medium of an ordinary oral contract. Harrell v. Harrell, 117 Ind. 94, 19 N.E. 621; Artman v. Ferguson, 73 Mich. 146, 40 N.W. 907.
Under the enlightened policy of modern legislation, married women have been relieved of many common law disabilities,...
To continue reading
Request your trial