to her; that by a new final decree she be awarded her interests in the estate and the administrator and defendants be enjoined from disposing of estate property pending final hearing.
To this complaint a demurrer was interposed upon the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the action; that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and that several causes of action are improperly united.
Decision.
Does the complaint set forth a cause of action, in equity, to set aside the antenuptial and postnuptial agreements? In this regard, the gist of plaintiff's cause of action, apparently, is that the antenuptial agreement was secretly prepared; that she was unaware of the financial worth of the deceased and that he did not inform her of his financial worth; that, furthermore, the antenuptial agreement awarded to her nothing beyond her exemptions excepting the remainder of the homestead estate when, then, the prospective husband was worth over $100,000. The plaintiff makes no direct allegations nor contention that deceased fraudulently represented or fraudulently concealed concerning his property either before or after the marriage. The complaint fully shows that the relations between the plaintiff and her husband were happy; that he treated her courteously and kindly and well provided for her. If she was misled, or did not understand concerning his property, apparently it was by reason of her actions, not the actions of the deceased. Nevertheless, the relation of husband and wife is one of special confidence and trust requiring the utmost good faith, and equity closely and rigidly scrutinizes transactions between them to the end that injustice and oppression may not result. In such cases the principle of law is often applied that fraudulent concealment will be presumed and the burden of proof thrown on him, or those claiming under him, to show that full disclosure had been made where the provision made for the wife is grossly disproportionate to the value of the estate. 21 Cyc. 1269; Herr v. Herr (N. D.) 178 N. W. 443, 444; In re Warner’s Estate, 210 Pa. 431, 59 Atl. 1113; In re Enyart’s Estate, 100 Neb. 337, 160 N. W. 120; Keith v. Keith, 37 S. D. 132, 156 N. W. 910. It is true that in this state dower rights do not obtain. The husband, by his will, might have excluded the wife from any participation in his estate excepting the
