Tiernan v. Binns

• Decision Date: 05 January 1880
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: Tiernan <I>versus</I> Binns et al., Executors.

92 Pa. 248

Tiernan versus Binns et al., Executors.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 21, 1879.

January 5, 1880.

November 21st 1879.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and TRUNKEY, JJ. STERRETT and GREEN, JJ., absent

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette county: Of October and November Term 1879, No. 167.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

W. H. Playford, for plaintiff in error.—The words of a contract of this kind should not be extended beyond their technical meaning: Ellmaker v. Ellmaker, 4 Watts 89.

In Compher v. Compher, 1 Casey 31, the court say: "When a widow accepts a provision made for her in the will of her husband, she cannot claim her rights under the intestate laws; but this does not apply to the $300 which she is entitled to retain by the Act of 1851."

The words of the Act of Assembly are, that she may retain either real or personal property belonging to the estate, to the value of $300. The executor or administrator has nothing to do with it, but set it out and have it appraised, provided that she is of her husband's household at the time of his death.

Should the ante-nuptial agreement in this case be extended beyond the widow's right of dower and her interest under the intestate laws?

Boyle & Mestrezat, for defendants in error.—No decided case rules this question in favor of the plaintiff; while it seems to us very clear that Dillinger's Appeal, 11 Casey 357, decides it against her, notwithstanding the difference between the facts. That was a post-nuptial contract, and provided for a separation. It stipulated that the wife "shall not claim at any time or times hereafter any right or title which the said Ann Dillinger now hath or may have to any jointure, dower or thirds, into and out of the estate, real, personal or mixed, of which the said John Dillinger now or hereafter may be seised or possessed." The right of the wife to any interest of any kind in her husband's estate, was denied and refused, not because of the separation, not because of her adultery, but because by the articles she had renounced her right and surrendered her interest. (See Ruth Bieren's Appeal, post, p. 265. — REP.)

Mr. Justice PAXSON delivered the opinion of the court, January 5th 1880.

This was an action brought by Elizabeth Tiernan, the widow of John Tiernan, deceased, against his executors, to recover the sum of $300, the value of the property which they had refused to set apart to her, after demand made in writing under the Act of 14th April 1851. The refusal of the executors was based upon an ante-nuptial contract executed by the plaintiff and the defendant's testator the day before their marriage, in which the said plaintiff, for the consideration therein mentioned, relinquished to the said John Tiernan "all right of dower and all interest of any kind whatsoever to which she might be entitled in the estate of the said John Tiernan by reason of the marriage aforesaid."

It was held in Kline's Estate, 14 P. F. Smith 122, that the parties to an ante-nuptial contract were not dealing at arms' length, like buyer and seller, but stood in a confidential relation, calling for the exercise of the richest good faith, and while it might not be necessary to show affirmatively that there was a full disclosure of the property and circumstances of each, yet if the provision secured for the wife was unreasonably disproportionate to the means of the intended husband, it raised the presumption of designed concealment, and threw upon him the burden of proof. And see Kline v. Kline, 7 P. F. Smith 120.

The bona fides of this contract has been settled by the verdict of the jury in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff's second point, which was affirmed by the court below, was in the precise language of the ruling in Kline's Estate. The fact is therefore established in the cause that the ante-nuptial contract was executed in entire good faith and without any concealment of material facts on the part of the husband.

This leaves but the single question, whether, notwithstanding the contract, the plaintiff is entitled to the widow's $300 under the Act of 14th April 1851. It was contended for the plaintiff that the ante-nuptial contract is without...