The defendant Ruth U. Turner contends that the deed of separation operated as a substitution for, or a rescission of, the ante-nuptial agreement, that the resumption of conjugal cohabitation by E. F. Turner and herself annulled the deed of separation, and therefore she is entitled to dower.
Ruth Umphlett, in contemplation of marriage, with E. F. Turner was expressly authorized by G.S. 52-13 to release by valid contract her right of dower in the lands of E. F. Turner.
Stewart v. Stewart,
In this antenuptial agreement Ruth Umphlett in plain and unequivocal language acquitted, released and discharged all lands and real estate of which E. F. Turner is possessed, оr shall be entitled to at his decease, from all claims of dower and homestead, so that his realty, in the event she survived him, should go in every respect as if E. F. Turnеr had continued unmarried. The mutuality of the stipulations in this agreement whereby E. F. Turner, the prospective husband, and Ruth Umphlett, the prospective wife, mutually relеased rights in each other’s property is a sufficient consideration.
Blankenship v. Blankenship, supra; Smith v. Farrington
(Maine),
There is no contention that the antenuptial agreement was unjust or unreasonable, or that it was imрroperly executed.
*538
Antenuptial agreements are not against public policy, and if freely and intelligently and justly made, are considered in many circumstances as conducive to marital tranquility and the avoidance of unseemly disputes concerning property.
Seuss v. Schukat,
The antenuptial agreement here is a valid contract, and in equity should be enforced as written,
Stewart v. Stewart, supra,
unless the deed of separation operated as a substitution for, or a rescission of, the antenuptial agreement. The deed of separation was annulled by the subsequent resumption of conjugal cohabitation by Ruth U. Turner and E. F. Turner.
Campbell v. Campbell,
It seems that in the absence of contrary provisions in an antenuptial agreement, or of special statutory provisions, a separation and reconciliation between husband and wife will not affect or extinguish property rights under such an agreement.
Cryar v. Cryar,
We said in
Taylor v. Taylor,
Antenuptial contracts may during coverture be modified or rescinded with the full and free consent of the parties thereto, provided the rights of third parties have not intervened.
In re Greenleafs Estate,
It is well settled law that the parties to a contract, no rights of third pаrties having intervened, may rescind it, or substitute another contract for it, by making a new contract inconsistent therewith.
Redding v. Vogt,
A new contract between the samе parties which contains nothing inconsistent with the older one does not discharge the latter.
Drown v. Forrest,
*539
A new contract consistent with, or supplementary to, a prior contract does not discharge the prior contract.
Orpheus Vaudeville Co. v. Clayton Inv. Co.,
We said in Bank v. Supply Co., supra: “To have the effect of rescission, it” (the second contract) “must either deal with the subject matter of the former contract so comprehensively as tо be complete within itself and to raise the legal inference of substitution (citing authorities), or it must present such inconsistencies with the first contract that the two cannot in any substantial respect stand together. . . . Before the new contract can be accepted as discharging the old, the fact that such was the intention of the parties must clearly appear. . . . We must, of course, keep within the bounds of the writings, but the circumstances surrounding their execution, thе relation of the parties and the object to be accomplished, are all to be consulted in arriving at the intent.”
Whether a prior contract is discharged by a new contract depends on the intention of the parties. 17 C.J.S., Contracts, p. 885.
The principles of construction applicable tо antenuptial contracts and to contracts generally are the same.
Collins v. Phillips,
The terms of the antenuptial agreement and of the deed of seрaration are plain and explicit. The court will determine their legal effect.
Howland v. Stitzer,
In both the antenuptial agreement and the deed of separаtion Ruth U. Turner released her right of dower in the real estate of E. F. Turner. The provision in the deed of separation that she would sign such deeds and papers as might be necessary to enable E. F. Turner to sell, assign or deal with his property was merely a provision consistent with, and supplementary to the antenuptial agreement: its obvious purpose was that she would release her right of dower by her signature to a deed in case the validity of a deed to bar hеr right of dower might be questioned by anyone. The release of her rights to E. F. Turner’s personal property at his decease in the deed of separatiоn is merely supplementary to the antenuptial agreement.
If Ruth U. Turner and E. F. Turner had not resumed conjugal cohabitation, there is nothing in the two contracts to render the performance of both impossible, so that the two could not stand together. Considering the relationship of the parties and the object to be accomplished in both contracts, it seems plain that it was not the intention of the parties that the deed of separation should dischargе the antenuptial agreement, but that the intention of the parties was that the deed of
*540
separation should be consistent with, and supplementary to, thе ante-nuptial agreement. Such being the clear intent of the parties — and “the heart of a contract is the intention of the parties,”
Electric Co. v. Insurance Co.,
The learned and experienced judge below ruled correctly that the deed of separation did not discharge or rescind the antenuptial agreement, that the antenuptial agreement was in full force and effect at the time of E. F. Turner’s death, and that Ruth U. Turner by the plain terms of her antenuptial agreement had no dower in the realty of her decеased husband.
The case of
Hewlett v. Almand
(Court of Appeals of Ga. Division No. 2),
The judgment entered below is
Affirmed.