Law School Case Brief
Kirksey v. Kirksey - 30 Ga. 156 (1860)
If a wife, by bill, sets up an ante-nuptial agreement by parol for the settlement of property, which is admitted by the husband, and the Statute of Frauds is not insisted upon, equity will decree a specific performance.
This was a bill filed in 1860 by complainant Mary Kirksey (by her next friend) against husband Elisha H. Kirksey, Jesse L. Blalock and others. The object of the bill was to set up an ante-nuptial verbal agreement between complainant and husband Elijah H. relative to the property owned by her prior to their marriage, and which she might subsequently acquire. The marriage occurred about June, 1857. The bill further seeks to set aside and have declared void a certain deed of gift executed by said Mary in favor of her children by a former marriage, of an enslaved person, and 100 acres of land. This deed was executed just prior to her marriage with Kirksey, and which she executed when sick, upon the representation of her two sons, John F. and James H. Waldrop, that said paper was a will. The bill further seeks to set aside and annul a certain bill of sale executed by her husband, the said Elisha H., to Jesse L. Blalock, of the enslaved person, who was "owned" by complainant before her marriage with Kirksey, and which enslaved person has been detained or taken into the possession of Blalock.
In an 1860 case, may a specific performance be decreed if a wife, by bill, sets up an ante-nuptial agreement by parol for the settlement of property?
In a very brief opinion, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that if the husband confesses the ante-nuptial agreement and does not insist upon the statute of frauds in bar of its execution, there will be no obstacle in the way of decreeing its performance. And the case made by the bill and admitted by the demurrer of the other three defendants, sternly demands the interference of a court of equity.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class