Dutton v. Dutton
Citations
- 113 Kan. 146
- 213 P. 326
- 1923 Kan. LEXIS 352
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Contract — Rescission—Restoration of Everything Received Must Be Tendered. One asking to rescind a contract based upon sufficient consideration and wholly executed, for fraud, must restore or offer to restore to the other party the money or thing received under the contract, and so far as-practicable place him in the position he was in at the time of the execution of the contract.</p> <p>2. Same — Contract Cannot Be Affirmed in Part and Repudiated in Part. A party cannot affirm a contract in part and repudiate it in part nor hold some of its benefits and at the same time evade its disadvantages.</p> <p>3. Same — Postnuptial Contract Fully Executed — No Ground for Rescission Stated. A postnuptial contract, fully executed, settling property rights between a husband and wife where circumstances and conditions were such as to warrant a divorce, and where the health and happiness of the parties made a separation necessary and in fact inevitable and where the property apportioned to the wife was a fair if not an adequate allowance, and where she relinquished all right to the real estate and other property reserved to him, she cannot, without setting aside the contract, claim any of the property so reserved, although it may have been previously occupied as the homestead of the parties.</p> <p>4. Divorce — Foreign Divorce Decree — Alimony. As to the divorce subsequently procured by the husband in another state, the rule of McCormick v. McCormick, 82 Kan. 31, 107 Pac. 546, is followed.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- party cannot hold some contract benefits and at same time evade its disadvantages
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Johnston
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Petty v. PettySupreme Court of Kansas· 1938-03-05· cited 22×
- Edmond R. Glenn and William Burman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a CorporationTenth Circuit· 1965-03-02· cited 10×
- Kephart v. Data System International, Inc.D. Kansas· 2003-01-16· cited 9×
- Erdley v. DixonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1928-12-08· cited 5×
- Jackson v. National BankSupreme Court of Kansas· 1937-09-25· cited 3×
- Demaree v. BoardmanSupreme Court of Kansas· 1945-11-10
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.