Husband and Wife. Contract, Validity. Equity Jurisdiction, Specific performance. A man and woman made an antenuptial contract by which after their marriage they were to retain their respective estates, with a provision that, if the wife should survive the husband she should receive within six months from the time of his death the sum of $1,000 from his estate, that to secure such payment she should have possession of certain real estate of which he was seised which should become hers absolutely if the payment was not made within six months, and that upon his death she should by deed release all interest in his estate excepting such claim of $1,000 and the security of the payment therefor. After their marriage and the death of the husband, his sole heir at law within six months tendered to the widow the sum of $1,000 and demanded a release of all her interest in the estate of her late husband. Upon her refusal the heir at law brought a bill for specific performance of this provision of the contract. Held, that the provision of the contract was valid and that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree.
DeCOURCY, J.
In her antenuptial contract with John Collins the defendant agreed, in the event of her surviving him, to release all interest in his estate except the claim for $1,000 and the security provided therefor. The bill of complaint alleges that the plaintiff, who is the sole heir of the deceased husband, has duly tendered this money and is ready and willing to pay it to the defendant, but that she refuses to release her interest in the estate. The contract is a lawful one and will be enforced in equity. Paine v. Hollister, 139 Mass. 144.
The provisions of R.L.c. 153, § 26, relied upon in the defendant's demurrer, apply only to antenuptial contracts enabling the respective parties to hold their separate property after marriage, and do not affect an antenuptial agreement relating only to the rights which a widow may claim in the estate of her deceased husband. So far as the bill discloses, the defendant had no separate property. Even assuming that the statute may apply to the agreement in question, it does not affect her obligation to release all interest in the estate of her late husband; and the demurrer was rightly overruled. Jenkins v. Holt, 109 Mass. 261. Freeland v. Freeland, 128 Mass. 509.
Decree affirmed with costs.