Persons under contract to inter-marry stand in confidential relations to each other.1 Transactions between them will be scrutinized closely.2 They must ordinarily make full disclosure to each other of material facts affecting contracts entered into between them affecting their property.3 In some jurisdictions it is said that such contracts will be presumed to be valid if it is fair upon its face.4 If a full disclosure of the material facts is made and the contract is fair and reasonable, it will be held to be valid, even though the wife did not secure independent advice before assenting.5 A contract by which each spouse agrees to claim no interest in the property of the other, is valid if fair, reasonable and upon full disclosure of material facts.6

5Manfredo v. Manfredo, 191 Ala. 322, 68 So. 157; Wood v. Wood, 116 Ark. 142, 172 S. W. 860.

6Way v. Ins. Co., 61 S. Car. 501, 39 S. E. 742.

7Lewis v. McGrath, 191 111. 401, 61 N. E. 135.

8Turner v. Turner, 90 Conn. 676, 98 Atl. 324.

9Smelser v. Meier, 271 Mo. 178, 196 S. W. 22; Willis v. Baker, 75 O. S. 291, 79 N. E. 466.

10Sheehan v. Sullivan, 126 Cal. 189, 58 Pac. 543; McDougall v. McDougall, 135 Cal. 316, 67 Pac. 778; Ford v. Ford, 193 Pa. St. 530, 44 Atl. 561.

11Birdsong v. Birdsong, 39 Tenn. (1 Head.) 289..

12Line v. Lenhardt, 127 Mo. 271, .29 S. W. 1025; and see Stone v. Wood, 85 111. 603.

13Judd v. Judd, 192 Mich. 198, 158 N. W. 948.

14Thomas v. Thomas, 27 Okla. 784, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 124, 109 Pac. 825, 113 Pac. 1058.

15Stiles v. Cain, 134 Cal. 170, 66 Pac. 231.

16 Fay v. Fay, 165 Cal. 469, 132 Pac. 1040.

The exact extent to which the prospective husband must make full disclosure to his prospective wife of his property in an antenuptial contract concerning their property rights is a question upon which the courts have not always expressed the same views. In some cases it has been said that if the prospective husband does not make full disclosure of the nature, character and amount of his property, the ante-nuptial contract must be set aside,1 even if the prospective wife knows that her prospective husband is generally believed to be wealthy.8 In other cases, it seems to be held that if the prospective husband is not guilty of intentional or fraudulent concealment, the contract may be valid, though the prospective wife does not have full information as to the extent of his property or as to her prospective legal rights therein.9 In one case, the court refused to set aside an ante-nuptial contract which was induced by the representation of the prospective husband that he was worth only two-thirds of what he was in fact worth, where such contract was not unreasonable in view of the amount of his estate.10 In order to uphold such a contract it must be shown to be fair.11 If unfair and unreasonable it will be set aside,12 and especially will specific performance be refused where such inadequate contract is signed without being read,13 or where it is shown that the intended wife does not understand the nature of the rights that she is surrendering,14 or the character of the instrument that she is signing.15 Such contract will be upheld if it is fair and reasonable and if it is made upon full disclosure of material facts.16 If it is not shown that the provision was inadequate when the contract was entered into, subsequent increase in the husband's property can not make it invalid.17 A contract making an inadequate provision will be upheld if entered into by the prospective wife voluntarily and will full knowledge of the facts.18 The question whether a provision is adequate or not does not depend solely upon the extent of the husband's estate. The financial condition of the wife before marriage is also to be considered.19 It may be shown that, as a matter of fact, no especial trust and confidence existed between the parties to an ante-nuptial contract with reference thereto, but that the prospective wife relied on independent advice.20 The principles which apply to ante-nuptial contracts between persons who are engaged to marry each other, do not apply to contracts which are made before the engagement takes place.21

1Illinois. Martin v. Collison, 266 111. 172, 107 N. E. 257.

Iowa. Peet v. Peet, 81 la. 172, 46 N. W. 1051; Fisher v. Koontz, 110 la. 498, 80 N. W. 551.

Kansas. Watson v. Watson, 180 Pac. 242.

Kentucky. Simpson v. Simpson, 04 Ky. 586, 23 S. W. 361; Stephens v. Stephens, 181 Ky. 480, 205 S. W. 573.

Michigan. In re Pulling, 93 Mich. 274, 52 N. W. 1116.

New York. Pierce v. Pierce, 71 N. Y. 154, 27 Am. Rep. 22.

Pennsylvania. Kline's Estate, 64 Pa. St. 122.

2 Stephens v. Stephens, 181 Ky. 480, 205 S. W. 573; In re Enyart's Estate, 100 Neb. 337, 160 N. W. 120.

3Watson v. Watson (Kan.), 180 Pac. 242; Simpson v. Simpson, 94 Ky. 586,

23 S. W. 361; Stephens v. Stephens, 181 Ky. 480, 205 S. W. 573 (obiter); Kline v. Kline, 57 Pa. St. 120, 98 Am. Dec. 206. See also, Collins v. Collins, 98 Md. 473, 103 Am. St. Rep. 408, 57 Atl. 597.

4Oesau v. Oesau's Estate, 157 Wis. 255, 147 N. W. 62.

5Stratton v. Wilson, 170 Ky. 61, 185 S. W. 522.

6Rankin v. Shiereck, 166 la. 10, 147 N. W. 180.

7Taylor v. Taylor, 144 111. 436, 33 N. E. 532; Hessick v. Hessick, 169 111. 486, 48 N. E. 712; Landes v. Landes, 268 111. 11, 108 N. E. 691; Stratton v. Wilson, 170 Ky. 61, 185 S. W. 522; 8In re Enyart's Estate, 100 Neb. 337, 160 N. W. 120.

In re Enyart's Estate, 100 Neb. 337, 160 N. W. 120.

9Hudnell v. Ham, 172 111. 76, 49 N. E. 985, 182 111. 486, 75 Am. St. Rep. 124, 48 L. R. A. 557, 56 -N. E. 172; In re Malchow's Estate, - Minn. - , 172 N. W. 915; Neely's Appeal, 124 Pa. St. 406, 10 Am. St. Rep. 594, 16 Atl. 883; Spurlock v. Brown, 91 Tenn. 241, 18 S. W. 868.

10Robinson's Estate, 222 Pa. St. 113, 70 Atl. 966.

11 Rankin v. Shiereck, 166 la. 10, 147 N. W. 180; Shea's Appeal, 121 Pa. St. 302, 1 L. R. A. 422, 15 Atl. 629.

12 Brooks v. Brooks (Ky.), 58 S. W. 450; Gaines v. Gaines' Admr., 163 Ky. 260, 173 S. W. 774; Stephens v. Stephens, l8l Ky. 480, 205 S. W. 573; In re Enyart's Estate, 100 Neb. 337, 160 N. W. 120; Proetzel v. Schroeder, 83 Tex. 684, 19 S. W. 292.

13 Barker v. Barker, 126 Ala. 503, 28 So. 587.

14 Simpson v. Simpson, 94 Ky. 586, 23 S. W. 361.

15Graham v. Graham, 143 N.Y. 573, 38 N. E. 722.

16In re Thorman's Estate, 162 la. 316, 144 N. W. 5.

17Devoe's Estate, 113 la. 4, 84 N. W. 923.

18 Yarde v. Yarde, 187 111. 636, 58 N. E. 600; Landes v. Landes, 268 111. 11, 108 N, E. 691; Yockey v. Marion, 269 111. 342, 110 N. E. 34; Bibelhausen v. Bibelhausen, 159 Wis. 365, 150 N. W. 516.

19Achilles v. Achilles, 137 111. 589, 28 N. E. 45; Devoe's Estate, 113 la. 4, 84 N. W. 923.

20Achilles v. Achilles, 137 111. 589, 28 N. E. 45; In re Malchow's Estate, - Minn. - , 172 N. W. 915.

A contract which is entered into without full disclosure is voidable and not absolutely void,22 and the wife may ratify such contract.23 A disclosure of such facts after the execution of the contract and before the marriage followed by acquiescence in such contract prevents subsequent disaffirmance.24

With reference to the contract to inter-marry in the future as distinguished from the ante-nuptial contract fixing their property rights, the woman is bound to disclose her prior unchastity with other.men.25 She is not bound to make disclosure as to other facts,26 but if she makes any disclosure as to such facts it must be fair and not misleading.27 This last rule has, of course, no application to contracts performed by the inter-marriage of the parties.