Opinion by
Thе question to be determined on this review is whether a wife by a postnuptiаl contract which she entered into with her husband has deprived herself of the right to share in his estate. The court below decided that she has not. The only daughter and legatee of the deceased husband appeals.
The widow, appellee, was the second wife of the decedent, the daughter, appellant, the only child of the first marriage.
The agreement into which the husband and wife entered recites thаt disputes and unhappy differences have arisen between them. Thе consideration named therein was fl “and other considerations.” It рrovides for the parties living apart, that the wife may carry on her separate business and that the husband relinquishes any interest in her propеrty which he may have. The husband agreed to file within ten days •'n application for divorce and to prosecute it to judgment so that the parties should be legally divorced. The wife released her interest in his estаte “with the full right and privilege [in the husband] to dispose of the same as though she were legally dead or as if they were never married.” The wife agrеed “That she will make no defense to any petition or libel in divorce agreed upon to be filed by the” husband. The court below held that this last рrovision *283 rendered the entire contract void. It is the contention of appellant that this part of the contract is executory аnd severable and the rest of the contract valid.
We agree with thе conclusion reached by the trial judge that the entire contraсt is void. No useful purpose will be served by reviewing all of the many decisions and textbook authorities in which the question before us has been treated. The authorities to which we shall briefly refer will point the way to the еarlier ones showing the public policy on which their and our present conclusion rests. “If an agreement binds the parties or either of them to do, or if the consideration is to do, something opposed to the public policy of the state or nation it is illegal and absolutely void, however solemnly made”: 13 C. J., p. 424, section 360; Kuhn v. Buhl,
The order of the court is affirmed at the cost of appellant.