Harman v. Harman's Estate

• Decision Date: 20 October 1914
• Docket Number: No. 29652.,29652.
• Citation: 149 N.W. 72,167 Iowa 106
• Parties: HARMAN v. HARMAN'S ESTATE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

167 Iowa 106

149 N.W. 72

HARMAN

v.HARMAN'S ESTATE.

No. 29652.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 20, 1914.

Appeal from District Court, Wapello County; F. M. Hunter, Judge.

Proceeding to establish against the estate of Benjamin Harman a claim based upon a promissory note given by him to his wife. From an order establishing the claim this appeal is taken. Affirmed.Steck & Steck, of Ottumwa, for appellant.

W. W. Epps, of Ottumwa, for appellee.

WITHROW, J.

I. The claimant, as the widow of Benjamin Harman, deceased, filed her claim against his estate, based upon a promissory note executed and delivered after their marriage, “to be paid when my estate is settled up.” The claim was resisted by the administrator, the defense being that the note was without consideration, and that the signature to it was obtained by fraud and undue influence of the claimant. It also is averred that it is claimed by Mrs. Harman that the note was given for work and labor done by her for decedent prior to their marriage, and that there was no other consideration for it, and that the consideration as claimed was fully and finally discharged before marriage. The trial court established the claim, and the administrator appeals.

II. On and prior to April 17, 1905, Susan Lewis, then unmarried, was employed as housekeeper by Benjamin J. Harman. On that date an antenuptial contract was entered into between the parties, the terms of which so far as relevant to this case were as follows:

“As a part of this contract, and in consideration of its terms, the party of the second part hereby acknowledges full satisfaction of all claims she has or could make against the party of the first part on account of services performed by her for him as housekeeper, from the time she commenced to serve him in that capacity to the present time, and also on account of services that she may hereafter perform as housekeeper until their marriage.”

October 10, 1903, Mr. Harman had executed his will, in which he made provision that, in consideration of her services as housekeeper for him in the past, and for such services as she would so render in the future, if she remained with him, Mrs. Lewis should receive one-sixth of his net estate. Contemporaneously with the execution of the antenuptial contract Mr. Harman added a codicil to his will revoking the provision above referred to, reciting that the contract was in lieu of such. On that day the parties were married.

III. The note which is the basis of the claim was executed March 31, 1908. There is no evidence to support the charge that it was procured by fraud and undue influence. The sole question in the case is whether the note was without consideration, and therefore, as claimed by appellant, not enforceable against the estate.

In another action, the testimony in which, in part, was introduced by the appellant and used in this hearing, Mrs. Harman testified that the note was given to her by her husband after they...