OPINION
KNOWLTON
J.
Some of
the causes for demurrer relied on by the defendant are
insufficient. It is immaterial that the memorandum of the
alleged contract is in the form of a letter, if it is
sufficient in other respects. Smith v. Allen, 5
Allen, 454; Stoddert v. Bowie, 5 Md. 18;
Peck v. Vandemark, 99 N.Y. 29, 1 N.E. 41. The
signing by the defendant by her Christian name only is as
binding upon her as if her signature were written in full.
Sanborn v. Flagler, 9 Allen, 474. That the alleged
contract did not contain a schedule of the property to be
affected by it, and was not recorded in the registry of
deeds, does not affect its validity as between the original
parties to it. The requirements of the statutes in regard to
schedules and recording are for the protection of creditors.
Pub. St. c. 147, § 27; St. 1867, c. 248; Cook v
Adams, 169 Mass. 186, 47 N.E. 605.
The
more difficult and important question in the case is whether
the bill sets out a contract to transfer property from the
defendant to the plaintiff in consideration of marriage. The
plaintiff in the bill gives at length 4 letters, and says he
has 38 others, written while he was in California and the
defendant in Europe, and while they were betrothed and were
arranging for their expected marriage. The letters, which are
set out, are affectionate, and are full of such matters of
personal interest as a young woman might be expected to
communicate to her future husband. In only two of them is
there any reference to her property, or to her intentions in
regard to the disposition
or use of it. In one of these, under date of September 3
1877, is this language: 'Now, dear Myron, for the
practical part of your letter: We cannot alter our
circumstances. We did not make them, and I assure you they
cannot change me, but I shall certainly take every advantage
that they offer to promote your interests. I think you have
struggled nobly, and been successful to an uncommon degree.
Now, I should like to see what you could do in working for
yourself alone. As I hope to share in the honor and success
that will some day crown your efforts, may I not also assist
you in working to that end? I will tell you plainly what I
intend to do. The money that my father gave me before his
death, I shall keep always for myself. Of that which has come
to me since, I shall settle a generous portion upon each of
the children, the interest of which will be more than
sufficient to clothe and educate them with every advantage.
Having thus provided for them, so that no one can feel that I
have jeopardized their interest in seeking my own happiness,
and given some thousands to poor relations and friends, I
shall consider the balance common property,--neither thine
nor mine, but ours, to be used for the general good in making
a happy home, in building up a business, and in relieving the
distress so prolific in this world of ours. What do you think
of my idea? I think I have answered the main points of your
letter, though very briefly, and have so much to say on this
subject, but not to-night.' In a letter of September 11,
1877, she wrote as follows: 'Now, I want to say a word
about money matters: I am the only one of the family (that
is, mother or the girls) who knows much about the position,
size, etc., of father's estate. Uncle sent me a
memorandum when I requested it, asking me not to mention it,
because he thought it would be unwise for the girls, or
people outside, to have an idea of the extent of their means;
and, of course, one has just as much as the other, only I,
having family, use more than they do. He assured me, and so
did Jim, that no property anywhere in the United States was
better secured; that it was much more profitable to us, and
easier for him to keep it together, as long as there were
minor children, which will be for five years yet, but, if a
majority wished it, division should be made. Now, I should
prefer a moderate sum safely invested and under my own
control. At the
same time, do not wish to force an issue that would look as
though I lacked confidence in him or his judgment, because I
do not. That is one reason why I have never told you anything
definite about my affairs. I feel a pride in being able to
say when you go to him, as you must do before
long, that you do not know of them, that I have kept the
confidence he reposed in me, and that, though 'in
love,' I can still be just and practical. I shall tell
him, as I did you not long since, what my intentions are in
regard to my property,--an ample provision for the children
and myself, and then the rest to be made use of to our mutual
benefit. He seemed to find no difficulty in spending twenty
thousand dollars for me when I wished it, and I shall expect
none in raising more when occasion requires.' These are
the only specific statements of either party referred to in
the bill as a foundation for the plaintiff's contention
that they entered into an antenuptial contract. Looking now
at the first of these letters, it is to be noticed that the
plaintiff does not aver that 'the practical part' or
'the main points' of his letter which the defendant
answered purported to look towards the making of any contract
in reference to property. He does not aver that he wrote in
reply to either of these letters anything to show that he
understood that the parties were making an antenuptial
contract. She was a young...
