Miller v. Miller

Decision Date13 December 1887
Citation35 N.W. 464,78 Iowa 177
PartiesMILLER v. MILLER.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from district court, Polk county.

This action was brought by Nancy A. Miller upon a written contract executed to her by the defendant, her husband, Robert S. Miller. The defendant demurred to the petition, and the demurrer was sustained. The plaintiff elected to stand upon her petition, and judgment was rendered against her for costs. She appeals.Cole, McVey & Clark, for appellant.

C. P. Holmes, for appellee.

ADAMS, C. J.

The contract sued upon is in these words: “This agreement, made this fifth day of August, 1885, between the undersigned, husband and wife, in the interests of peace and for the best interests of each other and of their family, is signed in good faith by each party, with the promise each to the other and to their children that they will each honestly promise to help each other to observe and keep the same, which is as follows, to-wit: All past causes and subjects of dispute, disagreement, and complaint of whatever character or kind shall be absolutely ignored and buried, and no allusion thereto by word or talk to each other or any one else shall ever be made. Each party agrees to refrain from scolding, fault-finding, and anger in so far as relates to the future, and to use every means within their power to promote peace and harmony, and that each shall behave respectfully and fairly treat each other; that Mrs. Miller shall keep her home and family in a comfortable and reasonably good condition, and Mr. Miller shall provide for the necessary expenses of the family, and shall, in addition thereto, pay Mrs. Miller for her individual use $200 per year, payable $16 2/3 per month in advance, so long as Mrs. Miller shall faithfully observe the terms and conditions of their contract. They agree to live together as husband and wife and observe faithfully the marriage relation, and each to live virtuously with the other.”

The petition demurred to is quite long. We cannot set it out. The defendant demurred upon the ground that it showed the contract to be without consideration and against public policy. His position is that the plaintiff merely agreed to do what by law she was bound to do. The majority think that the defendant's position must be sustained. The writer of this opinion is not able to concur in that view. The petition sets out several reasons and inducements for making the contract. Among other things, it avers, in substance,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Oates v. Oates
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1945
    ... ... by the marital relation for a consideration is contrary to ... public policy and void. Miller v. Miller 78 Iowa ... 177, 35 N.W. 464, 16 Am.St.Rep. 431; Foxworthy v ... Adams, 136 Ky. 403, 124 S.W. 381, 27 L.R.A., N.S., 308, ... ...
  • Sinift v. Sinift
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1940
    ...181 N.W. 683, 14 A.L.R. 1004; Reid v. Reid, 216 Iowa 882, 249 N.W. 387; Mewhirter v. Hatten, 42 Iowa 288, 20 Am.Rep. 618; Miller v. Miller, 78 Iowa 177, 35 N.W. 464, 42 641, 16 Am.St.Rep. 431; In re Estate of Straka, 224 Iowa 109, 275 N.W. 490; Hamill v. Henry et al., 69 Iowa 752, 28 N.W. 3......
  • Clark v. Clark
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • March 1, 1968
    ...authority for the proposition that a reconciliation agreement on conditions is void as contrary to public policy. See Miller v. Miller, 78 Iowa 177, 35 N.W. 464, 42 N.W. 641 Mathie v. Mathie, 12 Utah 2d 116, 363 P.2d 779; McKay v. McKay, Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W. 520. There is authority to the......
  • Hoyt v. Hoyt
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • November 6, 1963
    ...Other courts have reached the same conclusion as reached by this Court in Copeland v. Boaz, supra for various reasons. In Miller v. Miller, 78 Iowa 177, 35 N.W. 464, 42 N.W. 641 (1889), the Iowa court reasoned that reconciliation agreements were against public policy, because it would disru......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT