The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1905-04-11
SHE WILL GET
HER PORTION
Ellen R. Quinn Bell Gets Third of
Her Husband Estate.
LOWER COURT is UPHELD
REIMBURSEMENT OF RIGHTS TO
SECURE A DIVORCE is VOID.
LOWER COURT is UPHELD

The supreme court handed down do
cision yesterday affirming the decree Of
the lower court I'm the ease Of Ellen Il.
Quinn Bell. respondent. against Franklin
Bell. executor Of the estate Of James
Bell. deceased. appellant one Of the
grounds for affirming the widows right
20 "a share i'm the estate was that there
was collusion in obtaining tine divorce
when she rclinquishcd her claim to the
property.
Franklin Bell as executor of James
Bells estate, prosecuted an appeal from
4 Judgment rendered in the district court
decreeing to the respondent as widow of
the deceased ouc-third value OF all the
real property Of which he was possessed
at the time Of his death.
Bell. as executor. filed his final account
a1d petition for distribution Of the es-
tate IN the court below. He asked that
the real estate be distributed to James
BolIS children, i'm accordance with the
last viii and testament of the deceased
wherein hc begueathcd all his property.
real personal and mixed. to them.
TO TINS petition the respondent filed
objection. and she petitioucd the court
10 decree her Ouc-third Of the real es-
tate owned by the deceased a the time
1f his death. For answer TO her petition.
the executor asserted that she had re-
uuquiShcd an her right. title and inter
"st i'm and to- ali OF the property left
Joy the deceased. and TO an the other
q
and alleged that the sO-caIIed reliuuuish-
meut- under the circumSta noes and con
diti0ns obtained from her was against
public policy and void She also claimed
that II was unjust and iucquitabIe and
not founded ON good and sufficient con-
At the trial i'm the lower court it was
SHOWN that the respondent and the de
ceased were married i'm MAY. IS9S. and
that they lived together as husband and
wife until Nav % 1900. when they sep
arated. and that they thereafter during
ms lifetime lived apart He died soon
II was also shown that the deceased
was habitually drunk and was frequently
gUarrclsOme and abusive. Added to what
she was compelled TO bear from him when
he was intoxicated or i'm a fault-finding
mood. his children all of whom we're
adults. and of whom the executor and
appellant WAS one. were determined to
cause them TO separate. After persistent
urging she was induced to leave the home
'l H,I HuSDdhd May y. 1900 she signed
accomplishments of all claims on his eS-
tate in consideration of the payment to
her or so. AFTER having agreed with the
deceased that hc was TO institute suit
Tor divorce and that she would make uu
defense to the action She 9yprrad that
at that time she did not know what prop
erty was owned by the deceased. but sub
sequently learned that the real estate
The trial court held that the agree
meut OF REIMBURSEMENT entered into 10y
The respondent was void. as being against
pubic policy and as being unjust and in
equitable and not founded on sufficient
or legal considers ton. The court decrced
TO the respondent oue-Uhird i'm value of
all the real property of the deceased as
provided by statute.
The supreme court held the agreement
was to facilitate divorce, and that a con
tract which is designed to facilitate the
procurement Of divorce to put an end
to the marriage status and sHDSOlVe the
parties from all the marital obligations
imposed on them by law cannot be en-
forced. 1t was held that there was sUf-
ficieur evidence to- support the finding
that court was affirmed and costs taxed
against the appellant.
The opinion was by Justice StTaup. JUS
tCcs BartCh and McCartN concurrinE.