Allen v. Allen

Citations

• 108 Kan. 765
• 196 P. 1075
• 1921 Kan. LEXIS 262

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Postnuptial Contract — Division of Property — Contract Canceled, Only by Mutual Agreement. A husband and wife became estranged, and believing that it was impossible for them to live together any longer, entered into a written contract for a division of their property which provided that neither should inherit from the other. The contract contained no provisions for either party which might not with equal propriety have been made by married people if no separation had been contemplated. Held, in an action where the validity of such a contract was involved, that the court properly instructed that the mere fact that after ■ the execution of the postnuptial contract the parties became reconciled and resumed marital relations would not be sufficient of itself to warrant the jury in finding that the contract had been set aside; that in order to revoke such contract both parties to it must consider it annulled and that one of them alone could not set it aside, and that in passing upon the question whether it had been canceled by mutual agreement all the circumstances in evidence tending to prove the intention of the parties should be considered by the jury.</p> <p>2. Same — Parol Evidence Incompetent to Change or Modify Contract. In a case involving such a contract the widow sought to prove that at the time the contract was executed her attorney said in the presence of herself and husband that if they resumed marriage relations the contract would be annulled. Held, that the evidence was incompetent under the rule forbidding parol testimony to modify or change the terms of a written contract.</p> <p>3. Same. In such a case it is held that the testimony of the wife concerning her intention with respect to annulling the contract at the time or after the resumption of the marriage relations was incompetent because her intention was not a circumstance from which the jury would have the right to infer what the intention of her husband was.</p>