Craven & Converse, for respondents.
“A party who seeks the aid of equity in relieving against a judgment on the ground of fraud must set forth the specific facts constituting the alleged fraud, and it is not sufficient to incorporate a general allegation of fraud in the complaint.” Bergen Twp. v. Nelson Co. 33 N. D. 247; Marshall-McCarthney Co. v. Holloran, 15 N. D. 71; 9 Ency. Pl. & Pr. p. 691; 16 Cyc. 231; 22 Cyc. 929; 23 Cyc. 1041; 9 Ency. Pl. & Pr. pp. 691, 692; Boyd v. Wyley, 18 Fed. 355.
With the knowledge possessed by plaintiffs, due diligence required: that they should make some inquiry and investigation as to what disposition their father had made of his property. See also as bearing upon the question general the following cases. Shain v. Sresouich, 104 Cal. 405, 38 Pac. 51; Mulcahey v. Dow; Estate of Davis, 136 Cal. 595, 65 Pac. 412; Estate of Townbley, 120 Cal. 350, 52 Pac. 815; Goodrich v. Ferris, (C. C.) 145 Fed. 884.
The final decree pleaded recites notice was given and served, the complaint conclusively, therefore charges plaintiff with actual notice of the distribution and final decree, such being the facts pleaded she is estopped to come into a court of equity and ask the said final judgment be vacated. Fisher v. Dolwig, 39 N. D. 161; Rickert v. Wandell, Minn. 170 N. W. 915.
Within the limitations incident to the sigue matter specified in the constitution, our probate court possesses superior and general jurisdiction, and have implied power to do whatever is reasonably necessary to carry out the powers expressly given.” State v. Brown, 113 Minn. I, 129 N. W. 136, 139; State ex rel. Benz v. Probate Court, (Minn.) 158 N. W. 234; In re Prebost Estate, S. D. 168 N. W. 630.
Statement.
Bronson, J. This is an equitable action to invalidate antenuptial and postnuptial agreements and to set aside a final decree in the estate of a deceased person. The plaintiff, the widow, has appealed from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
The facts, appearing in the complaint, and necessary to be stated, are as follows: The plaintiff, aged 59 years, married the deceased on February 19, 1916. Prior thereto she had acted as his housekeeper. On August 15, 1914, a former wife of the deceased had died leaving him
