Weld v. Weld

Decision Date10 June 1905
Docket Number14,193
Citation71 Kan. 622,81 P. 183
PartiesAUGUSTUS WELD v. JUDITH R. WELD et al
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Decided January, 1905.

Error from Republic district court; HUGH ALEXANDER, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

CONTRACTS--Oral Agreement Fully Executed--Marriage. An oral agreement, made in consideration of marriage, that after the marriage a debt of one of the contracting parties to the other shall be mutually regarded as paid is fully performed when the marriage takes place and is not thereafter affected by the statute of frauds.

V. D. Bullen, and B. T. Bullen, for plaintiff in error.

John C. Hogin, for defendants in error.

BURCH J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

BURCH, J.

Judith R. Kidder executed and delivered to Augustus Weld her promissory note for a sum of money, and secured its payment by a mortgage upon her real estate. Subsequently she married him in consideration of his parol agreement that the marriage should operate as a satisfaction of the note. Still later he brought a suit against her to recover on the note and to foreclose the mortgage. She pleaded payment, and upon a trial the jury returned a general verdict in her favor, and made answers to special questions as follow:

"(1) Did the plaintiff and the defendant Judith R. Weld (then Judith R. Kidder), before they were married, and after the note in suit had been given, enter into a parol contract or agreement whereby it was mutually agreed between them that in consideration that said Judith would thereafter marry the plaintiff the note in suit should, upon such marriage, be by the said parties mutually regarded as paid or satisfied? A. Yes.

"(2) If you answer the preceding question 'yes,' then did the defendant Judith R. Weld, in pursuance of such alleged contract and as a performance thereof on her part, marry the plaintiff? A. Yes."

Judgment was rendered for the defendant for costs. It is now urged that the evidence supporting the plea of payment was inadmissible because the contract, being oral, is within the statute of frauds, and marriage is not a sufficient part performance to remove the bar, and that the evidence admitted was not sufficient to sustain the verdict.

It is true the statute of frauds provides that no action shall be brought to charge any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage unless the agreement upon which the action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person by him or her lawfully authorized. (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 3174.)

It is likewise true that authorities may be found to the effect that generally marriage is not a sufficient part performance to avoid the effect of the statute; but there is no question of part performance in this case. The contract was fully executed when the defendant married the plaintiff. Nothing further was to be done by either party to satisfy its obligations. The agreement was not that the plaintiff would after marriage deliver money or property or securities to the defendant in consideration of the marriage, or that he would after marriage execute and deliver to her legal documents affecting her property rights. It simply was that the debt should be paid when they were married.

Some of the evidence on behalf of the defendant, as given by different witnesses, is as follows:

"They were out in the yard, and they came into the house, and he put his hand on her shoulder and said: 'Well, Anna, you needn't worry about the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Hoard v. Jones
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • July 11, 1925
    ...and to be enforceable by action must be in writing (Breen v. Davies, 99 Kan. 110, 160 P. 997), unless fully performed. (Weld v. Weld, 71 Kan. 622, 81 P. 183.) A modification of a contract is in legal effect a contract, and when by reason of the statute of frauds the original contract must b......
  • Walker v. Ireton
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • January 22, 1977
    ...of law: (1) The statute of frauds does not render the oral contract void. It is valid for all purposes except that of suit. (Weld v. Weld, 71 Kan. 622, 81 P. 183; Rice v. Randolph, 111 Kan. 73, 206 P. (2) Since the contract is one which cannot be enforced, no action for damages will lie for......
  • Vaught v. Pettyjohn
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1919
    ... ... Cyc. 279, 306, 307.) ... The ... contract was valid for all purposes except as a basis for an ... action to enforce it (Weld v. Weld, 71 Kan. 622, ... 624, 81 P. 183), and the evidence and finding of the jury ... established [104 Kan. 177] the fact that the contract ... ...
  • Miles v. City of Wichita, 39101
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1954
    ...agreements are valid for all purposes except as a basis for an action to enforce them between the parties thereto.' See, also, Weld v. Weld, 71 Kan. 622, 81 P. 183. In this action both parties to the lease had seen fit to comply with its terms. Under such circumstances it was not open to th......
  • 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