A contract in consideration of marriage is not taken out of the statute, according to the weight of authority, by the marriage of the party to whom the promise is made in reliance on such promise.1 There are some cases, how-

8 Jackson Iron Co. v. Concentrating Co., 65 Fed. 298; 12 C. C. A. 636; De Bord v. Holcomb, 13 Colo. App. 161; 57 Pac. 548.

9 Veazie v. Morse, 67 Minn. 100; 69 N. W. 637.

10 So held in an action for rent, Eubank v. Hardware Co., 105 Ala. 629; 17 So. 109. And in an action to recover the realty. Dahm v. Barlow, 93 Ala. 120; 9 So. 598.

11 Powell v. Crampton, 102 la. 364: 71 X. W. 579; Burden v. Knight, 82 Ia. 584; 48 N. W. 985; Thorp v. Bradley. 75 la. 50; 39 X. W. 177.

1 Caton v. Caton, L. R. 1 Ch. 137; Lloyd v. Fulton, 91 U. S. 479; Peek v. Peek, 77 Cal. 106; 11 Am. St. Rep. 244; 1 L. R. A. 185; 19 Pac. 227; Durham v. Taylor, 29 Ga. 166; Richardson v. Richardson. 148 111. 563; 26 L. R. A. 305; 36 X. E. 608; affirming, 45 111. App. 362; Keady v. White, 168 111. 76; 48 X. E. 314; affirming. 69 111. App. 405; McAn-nulty v. McAnnulty, 120 111. 26; 60 Am. Rep. 552: 11 X. E. 397; Flen-ner v. Flenner, 29 Ind. 564; Manning v. Riley. 52 X. J. Eq. 39: 27 Atl. 810; Hunt v. Hunt, 171 X. Y. 396; 59 L. R. A. 306; 64 X. E. 159; Henry v. Henry. 27 O. S. 121 ; ever, in which the opposite view has been taken.2