Estate of Woodburn

THE COURT.

The respondent is the widow of G. A. Woodburn, deceased, whose estate was in course of probate at the time of the making and entry of the order from which this appeal has been taken. The appellant is an heir of said G. A. Woodburn. During the course of administration of the estate an inventory and appraisement was duly filed showing that the estate consisted of certain personal property which did not exceed in value the sum of $1500. Thereafter the respondent presented her petition for the assignment to herself of the whole estate, in which petition the character and value of the estate as shown in the inventory and appraisement was set forth, and in which it is alleged that the decedent had left the petitioner as his widow and had left no minor children. She therefore prayed for an order of the court assigning the whole of the estate to herself as the widow of the decedent and for her exclusive use and benefit. Notice of the hearing upon, the petition having been duly given, Mrs. J. D. Wells, the appellant herein, asserting herself to be a daughter and heir at law of the decedent, appeared to contest the widow’s petition, and as a ground of such contest alleged the existence of an antenuptial agreement between G. A. Wood-burn and the respondent, who thereafter was to become his wife and widow, but who then bore the name of Mrs. D. H. Mitchell, and in- which agreement the parties thereto, in contemplation of their impending marriage, undertook to make a full and complete settlement of their property rights prior to said marriage. G. A. Woodburn, as the party of the first part to said agreement, agreed that “in consideration of the marriage contract above referred to, the said first party does hereby expressly waive and relinquish any and all right, title and interest in and to any property either real or personal now owned or that may be hereafter acquired by said second party [Mrs. Mitchell], and does further expressly waive and relinquish any and all right of inheritance in any such property now owned or that may be hereafter acquired by said second party which he might be entitled to by reason of being the husband of said second party”. Mrs. Mitchell, as the second party to said marriage settlement, agreed to an identical waiver

[686]

on her part. In connection with her agreement, however, it was provided, “That the said first party shall furnish the said second party as long as she may live a good and comfortable home, fully as good and commodious as the house now used and occupied by him [description], and it is agreed that said property may be held as a home for said second party so long as she may live.”