Bailey v. Finlayson

Citations

• 25 Fla. 153

Syllabus

<p>1. A marriage contract whereby the intended wife conveys her property to the intended husband, in trust for herself during life and to any child or children of the marriage after her death, and if there be no child or children, to her mother for life, and then to her brother and sisters, if made under the undue influence of the mother of the intended wife, said mother being one of the contingent beneficiaries of the trust, may be set aside on the application of such intended wife, or her heirs, and while, after her death, the husband, as trustee, may not impeach the contract for invalidity, he may do so in his character of heir under our statute.</p> <p>2. If a marriage contract contains a clause intended as a power of revocation, though inartificially expressed, and the evidence clearly shows that it was so intended, the clause will be regarded as conferring the power, though the language used may seem repugnant thereto. Parol testimony is admissable in such case to remove ihe seeming repugnancy, and reconcile the different parts of the contract, if in its construction the language can he reasonably made to conform to the intention.</p> <p>3. The evidence in this case shows undue influence of the mother over her daughter in the making of the contract; and it also shows that the words therein, “it is further understood that nothing herein oontained shall interfere with * * * the disposition (of the property) should the said party of the second part desire to sell or convey any part thereof, or to dispose of it by last will and testament,” were intended as a power of revocation.</p> <p>4. The property conveyed by the marriage contract, being in the wife at the time of her death, whether from the invalidity of the contract, or from her exercise of the power of revocation, descended under our statute to the husband and the child of the marriage in equal parts.</p>