Gackenbach v. Brouse

4 Watts & Serg. 546
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 15, 1842·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— A parol antenuptial settlement such as this, being in consideration of marriage which is a valuable one, is binding at the expiration of the coverture. No statute requires it to be in writing where the subject of the contract is the wife’s chattels; and here it covers the whole case; for it precludes not only the husband’s ownership during the coverture, but his right of survivorship at the dissolution of it. The provision of the intestate law was not designed for a case where the course of the property at the wife’s death was marked out by a settlement. The existence of the contract was properly left to the jury as a fact of which there was evidence. There was no room for objection for want of mutuality, for the wife would be bound by the contract if she were a party to it; and there could be no such thing without her. The exceptions to evidence are not sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gackenbach v. Brouse, 4 Watts & Serg. 546 (Pa. 1842).

4 Watts & Serg. 546 (Gackenbach v. Brouse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Semenza v. Alfano
279 A.2d 29 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
Russo's Estate
180 A. 741 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
Heller v. Heller's Executors
3 Pa. D. & C. 246 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 1922)
Haraldson v. Knutson
171 N.W. 201 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1919)
Lant's Appeal
95 Pa. 279 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1880)
Earl v. Champion
65 Pa. 191 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1870)