This clause of the statute is held not to include contracts to intermarry.1

According to some authorities it does not include contracts between two persons about to intermarry concerning their respective property rights,2 nor indeed any promise which does not rest upon marriage as its sole consideration.3 Such contracts may, however, be affected by the clause in the statute of frauds with reference to conveyances of realty or some interest therein.4 In other jurisdictions contracts between parties about to intermarry adjusting their respective property rights are within this clause of the statute.5 All courts agree that this clause includes contracts for conveying anything of value upon the sole consideration of marriage,6 even if no realty is to be conveyed and the contract is to be performed within the year.7

20Merchant v. O'Rourke, 111 la. 351; 82 N. W. 759.

21 Eames v. Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 621; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Colt, 20 Wall (U. S.) 560; King v. Cox, 63 Ark. 204; 37 S. W. 877; Ins. Co. v. Kuessner, 164 111. 275; 45 N. E. 540; Western Assurance Co. v. Mc-Alpin, 23 Ind. App. 220; 77 Am. St. Rep. 423; 55 N. E. 119; Davenport v. Ins. Co., 17 la. 276; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Ireland, 9 Kan. App. 644; 58 Pac. 1024; Howard Ins. Co. v. Owens, 94 Ky. 197; 21 S. W. 1037; Sanford v. Ins. Co., 174 Mass. 416; 75 Am. St. Rep. 358; 54 N. E. 883; Campbell V. Ins. Co., 73 Wis. 100;

40 N. W. 661; Angell v. Ins. Co., 59 N. Y. 171; 17 Am. Rep. 322.

22Bartlett v. Ins. Co., 77 la. 155;

41 X. W. 601.

1 Caylor v. Roe, 99 Ind. 1; Withers v. Richardson, 5 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 94; 17 Am. Dec. 44.

2 Riley v. Riley, 25 Conn. 154;

Rainbolt v. East, 56 Ind. 538; 26 Am. Rep. 40; Nowack v. Berger, 133 Mo. 24; 54 Am. St. Rep. 663; 31 L. R. A. 810; 34 S. W. 489. Such promise is said to be " not in consideration of marriage although it was made in contemplation of marriage." Riley v. Riley, 25 Conn. 154, 159. "The contract in this case between the parties was not made in consideration of marriage, but rather in contemplation of marriage, and the consideration was the mutual relinquishment of prospective property rights." Rainbolt v. East, 56 Ind. 538, 539; 26 Am. Rep. 40.

3Larsen v. Johnson, 78 Wis. 300; 23 Am. St. Rep. 404; 47 N. W. 615.

4 Rainbolt v. East, 56 Ind. 538; 26 Am. Rep. 40.

5Keady v. White, 168 111. 76; 48 N. E. 314; affirming, 69 111. App. 405; Powell v. Meyers (Ky.), 64 S. W. 428; Finch v. Finch, 10 O. S. 501; Stanley v. Madison, 11 Okla.