{
  "id": 3329191,
  "name": "Alta Robbins v. H. C. Robbins et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Robbins v. Robbins",
  "decision_date": "1907-02-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "333",
  "last_page": "335",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "225 Ill. 333"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "91 Tenn. 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Tenn.",
      "case_ids": [
        8537917
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tenn/91/0241-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 Ill. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5555205
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/183/0486-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 333,
    "char_count": 5604,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.809,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.572654163217837e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40245801975327516
    },
    "sha256": "6122294cd6d72aa5cb6f1a4824f15dbbf3791dc3f80489777f066201a842d268",
    "simhash": "1:52d777b58c558641",
    "word_count": 992
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:10:55.631764+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Alta Robbins v. H. C. Robbins et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Cartwright\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe circuit court of Randolph county dismissed for want of equity the bill of appellant filed in that court against the appellees, as \u25a0 heirs at-law of Charles Robbins, asking the court to cancel appellant\u2019s ante-nuptial contract with said Charles Robbins and to assign to her dower in his lands.\nThe complainant, then Alta Southworth, and Charles Robbins had both been married before their marriage to each other and each had children by the former marriage. He had a homestead in Sparta, Illinois, worth from $700 to $800, a farm eight miles from Sparta worth from $8200 to $8500, and notes aggregating $2000, mostly given by his children for advancements and payable on the settlement of his estate. His entire property was worth about $11,000. She was living with her children and had no property except a little household furniture worth $25. He boarded with the Bennett family, who occupied his house in Sparta. The complainant was past fifty years old and Robbins was sixty-eight. Mrs. Bennett, with whom Robbins lived, was a friend of the complainant, who was in the habit of visiting her. Complainant was desirous \u00f3f contracting a marriage for the purpose of securing a home, and she spoke to Mrs. Bennett about it. Mrs. Bennett told her that Robbins was worth about $12,000; that he had a farm and the town property and had some money out. Mrs. Bennett introduced complainant to Robbins in_May, 1903, and acted as a sort of go-between or friend of both parties in bringing about the marriage. . Robbins told Mrs. Bennett that he had made a will giving all his property to his children and he would not give complainant anything, and she expressed the opinion to him that that was not fair and that she herself would not marry on such terms. This was the latter part of August, 1903, and then Robbins went down town and came back with the contract in question, which gave complainant the use of the homestead in Sparta during her life. Mrs. Bennett said to him that that was more like it and that it would give his wife a home. Robbins said that his will was firm and he would not change it; that the will would take the property and his wife would get nothing unless he saw fit to give it to her. Mrs. Bennett, in talking with complainant about the arrangement, told her that she might just as well make the contract, because without the contract she would get nothing. Complainant came the next day and Robbins brought out the contract, and complainant, when about to sign it, threw down the pen and said, \u201cIf I have to sign a contract to get married\u2014\u201d and stopped. Mrs. Bennett said, \u201cIt is to your own interest to sign it,\u201d and complainant said, \u201cWell, I guess it is,\u201d and signed the contract. This was on August 31, 1903, and the parties were married the next day. They lived together until January 29, 1905, when Robbins died.\nIt is conceded by counsel for complainant that she was fully informed as to the amount of property owned by her prospective husband and of every fact and circumstance material to the contract, but he contends that she is entitled to avoid it because she was not fully and correctly informed as to her legal rights. She had full information as to the property of Robbins and there was no actual fraud inducing her to execute the contract. Mrs. Bennett told her that if she did hot sign the contract she would get nothing, but this information was given through ignorance of the law. None of the parties knew that the marriage would revoke the will of Robbins and there was no actual fraud inducing her to execute .the contract. Mrs. Bennett told her that if she did not sign the contract she would get nothing, but this information was given through ignorance of the law. None of the parties knew that the marriage would revoke the will,, and Robbins died in the belief that the will was valid. After his death probate of the will was refused because it had been revoked by the marriage. Mere ignorance of .the law in that respect would not be sufficient to avoid the contract. (Hudnall v. Ham, 183 Ill. 486.) Complainant had no reason to rely upon the opinion of Mrs. Bennett as to the law or to presume that one knew any more about the legal rights of parties in such cases than the other. This case is distinguished in that respect from .the case of Spurlock v. Brown, 91 Tenn. 241, where the information as to the law was given by the husband\u2019s attorney, from whom the wife had a right to expect a full and correct statement of her legal rights. In this case there was no actual fraud affecting the contract, and we think the decree of the circuit court was right.\nThe decree is affirmed.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Cartwright"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. Clay Horner,.for appellant.",
      "A. E. CrislEr, William M. Schuwerk, and R. E. Sprigg, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Alta Robbins v. H. C. Robbins et al.\nOpinion filed February 21, 1907.\nAnte-nuptial contracts\u2014ignorance of law that marriage revokes will does not vitiate ante-nuptial contract. An ante-nuptial contract executed by the intended wife with full knowledge of the extent of the husband\u2019s property and of the fact that it had been willed to his children, is not vitiated because she did not know that \u2022 the marriage would revoke the will, where the husband himself was also ignorant of that fact and there was no actual fraud in inducing her to sign the contract, even though her advisers, none of whom were lawyers, erroneously, but in good faith, told her she would receive nothing without the contract.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Randolph county; the Hon. B. R. Burroughs, Judge, presiding.\nH. Clay Horner,.for appellant.\nA. E. CrislEr, William M. Schuwerk, and R. E. Sprigg, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0333-01",
  "first_page_order": 333,
  "last_page_order": 335
}