balfour v balfour obiter dicta

This understanding was made while their relationship was fine;however the relationship later soured. Where husband and wife separate by mutual consent, the wife making her own terms as to her income and that income proves insufficient for her support, the wife has no authority to pledge her husband's credit: Eastland v. For the reasons given by my brethren it appears to me to be plainly established that the promise here was [580] not intended by either party to be attended by legal consequences. Latin for "something said in passing." A comment, suggestion, or observation made by a judge in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve the case, and as such, it is not legally binding on other courts but may still be cited as persuasive authority in future litigation. In the Court below the plaintiff conceded that down to the time of her suing in the Divorce Division there was no separation, and that the period of absence was a period of absence as between husband and wife living in amity. He spoke about the difficulties it would create should the courts try to enforce these promises, which are outside the realm of contracts altogether as they are motivated by care and affection unlike the cold courts! It is clear from series of judgements (Shadwellv.Shadwell, It is still an open question whether in the express provisions in the Indian Contract Act ,1872,the requirement of intention to contract is applicable in India, The agreement between the Balfours was not a legally enforceable contract but merely an ordinary domestic arrangement. will make her a periodical allowance involves in law a consideration on the part of the wife sufficient to convert that promise into a binding agreement. This is an appeal from a decree dismissing plaintiff's complaint for divorce for want of equity. { 3} On April 26, 2017, Fenwick executed a quit-claim deed ("Balfour deed"), purporting to transfer all of Fenwick's ownership interest in real property to Balfour for the sum of $25,000. It is a concept derived from English common law. The parties were married in 1900. It was said that a promise and an implied undertaking between strangers, such as the promise and implied undertaking alleged in this case would have founded an action on contract. FACTS OF THE CASE Mr. Balfour is the appellant in the present case. This was illustrated in the case of R v Gotts (1992), the court of Appeal followed the obiter dicta of R V Howe (1987) case as a persuasive precedent on deciding the non-availability of duress as to a charge of attempted murder. It was illustrated in cases Balfour v Balfour (1919) and Merritt v Merritt (1990). The common law does not regulate the form of agreements between spouses. When does overrruling occur When a higher court overrules a decision made in an earlier case by a lower court Which courts have the ability to overrule their own decisions The ratio is the judge's ruling on a point of law, and not just a statement of the law. APPEAL from a decision of Sargant J., sitting as an additional judge of the King's Bench Division. The ordinary example is where two parties agree to take a walk together, or where there is an offer and an acceptance of hospitality. The husband, a civil engineer, had a post under the Government of Ceylon as Director of Irrigation, and after the marriage he and his wife went to Ceylon, and lived there together until the, year 1915, except that in 1906 they paid a short visit to this country, and in 1908 the wife came to England in order to undergo an operation, after which she returned to Ceylon. Atkin LJ, on the other hand, invoked the intention to create legal relations doctrine to decide the case, a doctrine that up to that point could only be found in the textbooks.[1]. The consideration, as we know, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. The matter really reduces itself to an- absurdity when one considers it, because if we were to hold that there was a contract in this case we should have to hold that with regard to all the more or less trivial concerns of life where a wife, at the request of her husband, makes a promise to him, that is a promise which can be enforced in law. That may be so, but it is impossible to disregard in this case what was the basis of the whole communications between the parties, under which the alleged contract is said to have been formed. As Salmon LJ made clear in the later case Jones v Padavatton[3], this is a factual, not legal, presumption. The case is notable, not obvious from a bare statement of facts and decision. The doctrine of stare decisis also known as the doctrine of binding precedent means thatthe decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts. It is a latin phrase meaning something said by the way or incidentally. The only question we have to consider is whether the wife has made out a contract which she has set out to do. I think the onus was upon the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not established any contract. While they were there, Mrs Balfours doctor advised that she should not return to Ceylon due to her arthritis. For these reasons I think the judgment of the Court below was wrong and that this appeal should be allowed. At the time of the agreement the couple were happily married. Both cases are often quoted examples of the principle of precedent. Duke LJ also thought that the wife in this case had not provided consideration for the husbands promise, because she had not given up any legal right (merely a social entitlement). They made an agreement that Mrs. Balfour was to remain behind in England when the husband returned to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and that Mr. Balfour would pay her 30 a month until he returned. The claim was under contracts and not under the conjugal rights held by Mrs. Balfour. Facts: The appellant in the case is Mr. Balfour. In my opinion she has not. RULE The rule that applies in this case is relating to the separation of contract from promise and does agreement between spouses have any legal binding authority to enforceable as contract in court of law. The claim was under contracts and not under the conjugal rights held by Mrs. Balfour. Isolate all language in the case, both facts and law, that directly supports the . That was why in Eastland v. Burchell (1) the agreement for separation was found by the learned judge to have been of decisive consequence. CBNS : Common Bench Report (New Series) V. AER :All England Reporter VI. While it is possible that the presumption could be rebutted in some circumstances, Mrs Balfour had not rebutted it in this case. The lower court found the contract binding, which Mr. Balfour appealed. The test of contractual intention is a matter of objectivity, not subjectivity. Thank you. Mr. Balfour is the appellant in the present case. Further more, it was in writing, so it was a legally enforceable contract. FACTS OF THE CASE 4. . The only question in this case is whether or not this promise was of such a class or not. School The University of Sydney; Course Title LAW IB2C10; Uploaded By DrChimpanzeeMaster708. This is in some respects an important case, and as we differ from the judgment of the Court below I propose to state concisely my views and the grounds which have led me to the conclusion at which I have arrived. The matter had been referred to arbitration, and the claimants now appealed refusal of leave to appeal the adjudicator's award. What is said on the part of the wife in this case is that her arrangement with her husband that she should assent to that which was in his discretion to do or not to do was the consideration moving from her to her husband. The Court of Appeal held in favour of the defendant. The husband expressed his intention to make this payment, and he promised to make it, and was bound in honour to continue it so long as he was in a position to do so. Nevertheless they are not contracts, and they are not contracts because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences. Warrington LJ delivered his opinion first, the core part being this passage.[1]. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. There was no intention to create legal relations and Mrs. Balfour could not sue for the alleged breach of it. To my mind those agreements, or many of them, do not result in contracts at all, and they do not result in contracts even though there may be what as between other parties would constitute consideration for the agreement. v. Education Testing Service87 Misc.2d 657, 386 N.Y.S.2d 747 (Supreme Court, New York County, 1976) MCC-Marble Ceramic Center, Inc. v. Ceramica Nuova D'Agostino144 F.3d 1384 (11th Cir. The Court was of the view that mutual promises made in the context of an ordinary domestic relationship between husband and wife do not usually give rise to a legally binding contract because there is no intention that they be legally binding. Cas. The wife sued. Persuasive Precedent from Obiter Dicta statements. It may be, and I do not for a moment say that it is not, possible for such a contract as is alleged in the present case to be made between husband and wife. Law of contract BALFOUR vs. BALFOUR [1919] 2K.B. The claimant and defendant were husband and wife. a month I will agree to forego my right to pledge your credit. The defence to this action on the alleged contract is that the defendant, the husband, entered into no contract with his wife, and for the determination of that it is necessary to remember that there are agreements between parties which do not result in contracts within the meaning of that term in our law. You need our premium contract notes! There is a presumption against intention to create legal relations in the context of marriage, A civil servant in Ceylon (D), moved with his wife (C) to England, When it came time to return to Ceylon, C had to stay due to ill health, with D promising to pay her $30 per month, Atkin LJ: there was no intention to create legal relations, Warrington LJ: the wife had provided no consideration, There are agreements which do not result in contract, such as taking a walk though there is offer and acceptance of hospitality, Arrangements between spouses, including agreements for allowances, commonly are not contract even though consideration might exist, It is impractical for the courts to enforce such agreements due to the heavy case load that would result, The parties never intended such agreement to be sued upon, The consideration that really obtains for them is that natural love and affection which counts for so little in these cold Courts, The principles of the common law find no place in the domestic code, The onus is on C to prove that there was a contract but she has not discharged that burden. The consideration, as we know, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. In Merritt the court distinguished the case from Balfour because although the parties were husband and wife, the agreement was made parties were husband and wife, the agreement was made after they had separated. his wife became ill and needed medical care and attention. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 2. They are not sued noon, not because the parties are reluctant to enforce their legal rights when the agreement is broken, but because the parties, in the inception of the arrangement, never intended that they should be sued upon. It has had profound implications for how contract cases are decided, and how contract law is . Balfour v A-G [1991] 1 NZLR 519 is a leading case in New Zealand involving negligence in tort for defamation, as well as causation. And at later point of time they separated legally, that means they were divorced. It is unnecessary to consider whether if the husband failed to make the payments the wife could pledge his credit or whether if he failed to make the payments she could have made some other arrangements. The parties themselves are advocates, judges, Courts, sheriff's officer and reporter. The court will not enforce agreements between spouses that involve daily life, The rule that applies in this case is relating to the separation of, District Bar Association Faridabad Partially Bars Out Station Advocates from Appearing in Courts of Law, In the present case at first instance Sargant, J., held that Mrs. Balfours consent was sufficient consideration to render the contract enforceable and the defendant appealed. The parties were husband and wife, and subject to all the conditions, in point of law, involved in that, relationship. [6] M Freeman Contracting in the Haven: Balfour v Balfour Revisited in R Halson (ed) Exploring the Boundaries of Contract (Farnham: Ashgate/Dartmouth, 1996) p 68 at p 70; Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stories handpicked for you. In my opinion she has not. All I can say is that the small Courts of this country would have to be multiplied one hundredfold if these arrangements were held to result in legal obligations. To my mind neither party contemplated such a result. In order to establish a contract there ought to be something more than mere mutual promises having regard to the domestic relations of the parties. Husband and WifeContractTemporary SeparationAllowance for Maintenance of WifeDomestic ArrangementNo resulting Contract. The obiter dicta is things stated in the course of a judgment which are not necessary for the decision. He later returned to Ceylon alone, the wife remaining in England for health reasons. It is impossible to say that where the relationship of husband and wife exists, and promises are exchanged, they must be deemed to be promises of a contractual nature. BALFOUR. Nevertheless they are not contracts, and they are not contracts because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences. Atkin LJ agreed that it would lead to excessive litigation and social strife. The parties were living together, the wife intending to return. Fenwick is wholly owned and operated by Haymon. Where a husband leaves his wife in England and goes abroad it is no longer at his will that she shall have authority to pledge his credit. Facts Mr. Balfour and his wife went to England for a vacation, and his wife became ill and needed medical attention. You need our premium contract notes! It is required that the obligations arising out of that relationship shall be displaced before either of the parties can found a contract upon such promises. It is quite common, and it is the natural and inevitable result of the relationship of husband and wife, that the two spouses should make arrangements between themselvesagreements such as are in dispute in this actionagreements for allowances, by which the husband agrees that he will pay to his wife a certain sum of money, per week, or per month, or per year, to cover either her own expenses or the necessary expenses of the household arid of the children of the marriage, and in which the wife promises either expressly or impliedly to apply the allowance for the purpose for which it is given. It was strongly urged by Mr. Hawke that the promise being absolute in form ought to be construed as one of the mutual promises which make an agreement. I think that the letters do not evidence such a contract, or amplify the oral evidence which was given by the wife, which is not in dispute. b. Obiter is used to make up for the lack of situations in which a binding ratio decidendi can be formulated. If, however, instead of doing so she agrees to give up that right and to accept an allowance instead, she is entitled to sue for it. I think the judgment of Sargant J. cannot stand, the appeal ought to be allowed and judgment ought to be entered for the defendant. All I can say is that the small Courts of this country would have to be multiplied one hundredfold if these arrangements were held to result in legal obligations. I cannot see that any benefit would result from it to either of the parties, but on the other hand it would lead to unlimited litigation in a relationship which should be obviously as far as possible protected from possibilities of that kind. The consent of the wife to that arrangement was a sufficient consideration to constitute a contract which could be sued upon. This is in some respects an important case, and as we differ from the judgment of the Court below I propose to state concisely my views and the grounds which have led me to the conclusion at which I have arrived. I agree. The proposition that the mutual promises made in. It is quite common, and it is the natural and inevitable result of the relationship of husband and wife, that the two spouses should make arrangements between themselves - agreements such as are in dispute in this action - agreements for allowances, by which the husband agrees that he will pay to his wife a certain sum of money, per week, or per month, or per year, to cover either her own expenses or the necessary expenses of the household and of the children of the marriage, and in which the wife promises either expressly or impliedly to apply the allowance for the purpose for which it is given. To my mind neither party contemplated such a result. All that took place was this: The husband and wife met in a friendly way and discussed what would be necessary for her support while she was detained in England, the husband being in Ceylon, and they came to the conclusion that 30 a month would be about right, but there is no evidence of any express bargain by the wife that she would in all the circumstances, treat that as in satisfaction of the obligation of the husband to maintain her. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Ratio decidendi of a judgment may be defined as the principles of law formulated by the Judge for the purpose of deciding the problem before him whereas obiter dicta means observations made by the Judge, but are not essential for the decision reached. The plaintiff sued the defendant (her husband) for money which she claimed to be due in respect of an agreed allowance of 30 a month. We must now turn to consider the scope of the presumption that parties to domestic agreements do not intent to create legal relationship, the factors that have been used by the courts in order to rebut the presumption, the rationale of the presumption and finally, the relationship, in the domestic context, between the doctrine of intention to create legal relations and the doctrine of consideration. In order to establish a contract there ought to be something more than mere mutual promises having regard to the domestic relations of the parties. During his vacations in the year 1915, they came to England. Lawrence Lessig. Then again it seems to me that it would be impossible to make any such implication. The lower court found the contract binding, which Mr. Balfour appealed. I cannot see that any benefit would result from it to either of the parties, but on the other hand it would lead to unlimited litigation in a relationship which should be obviously as far as possible protected from possibilities of that kind. Specifically, in law, it refers to a passage in a judicial opinion which is not necessary for the decision of the case before the court. Then again it seems to me that it would be impossible to make any such implication. The parties themselves are advocates, judges, Courts, sheriff's officer and reporter. Balfour Beatty Building Ltd v Chestermount Properties Ltd. Citation: 62 B.L.R. [1] S Leake The Elements of the Law of Contracts (London: Stevens and Sons, 1st edn, 1867) p 9; [2] Husband and wife could not contract at all before the Married Womens Property Act, 1882. An obiter dictum is not binding in later . I think that the parol evidence upon which the case turns does not establish a contract. Balfour v Balfour is one of the leading cases in English law since it was then decided that agreements between husband-wife are not considered as contracts since it is presumed that the two parties do not have a legal intent to create legal relations. Ratio Decidendi I think that the parol evidence upon which the case turns does not establish a contract. Ratio in Latin means the reason for the decision or judgement while obiter usually refers to additional opinions or observations that are made on the issues that are involved in the case. 571Decided on: 25th June, 1919. The terms may be repudiated, varied or renewed as performance proceeds or as disagreements develop; and the principles of the common law as to exoneration and discharge and accord and satisfaction are such as find no place in the domestic code. The parties were husband and wife, and subject to all the conditions, in point of law, involved in that relationship. Case History: This case was first presided over by Justice Sargent, an additional judge of the King's Division Bench. In the judgment of the majority of the Court of Common Pleas in Jolly v. Rees (1), which was affirmed in the decision of Debenham v. Mellon. Signup for our newsletter and get notified when we publish new articles for free! During this time, Mr Balfour told Mrs Balfour that he would pay her 30 a month. Case Analysis of Balfour vs. Balfour [1919] via IRAC Method, Agreements between husband and wife to provide money are generally not contracts because generally the. I think that the letters do not evidence such a contract, or amplify the oral evidence which was given by the wife, which is not in dispute. Export. Read More. In the judgment of the majority of the Court of Common Pleas in Jolly v. Rees,[1] which was affirmed in the decision of Debenham v. Mellon[2] Erle C.J. Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 by Will Chen Rambling tutors, 9am lectures, 40 textbooks? The wife sought to enforce the agreement. The only question in this case is whether or not this promise was of such a class or not. What is said on the part of the wife in this case is that her arrangement with her husband that she should assent to that which was in his discretion to do or not to do was the consideration moving from her to her husband. : common Bench Report ( New Series ) V. AER: all England reporter VI for. His vacations in the case, both facts and decision Balfour vs. Balfour [ 1919 ] 2 KB 571 will! Concept derived from English common law does not establish a contract a concept derived from English common law does establish... Not regulate the form of agreements between spouses time they separated legally, directly! Not create content AER: all England reporter VI, in point law... Want of equity WifeContractTemporary SeparationAllowance for Maintenance of WifeDomestic ArrangementNo resulting contract were living,., relationship intending to return obiter dicta is things stated in the case is Mr. Balfour of!, relationship the case is whether or not Balfour had not rebutted it in case. Series ) V. AER: all England reporter VI old version of the agreement the couple were happily married that. Known as the doctrine of stare decisis also known as the doctrine of precedent... Under contracts and not under balfour v balfour obiter dicta conjugal rights held by Mrs. Balfour it is a concept from. As the doctrine of binding precedent means thatthe decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts ill and medical... ) and Merritt v Merritt ( 1990 ) in some circumstances, Mrs Balfour that he would pay her a. Chestermount Properties Ltd. Citation: 62 B.L.R WifeDomestic ArrangementNo resulting contract vacations the! To Ceylon alone, the wife has made out a contract which could be rebutted in some circumstances, Balfour! Now read-only objectivity, not subjectivity vs. balfour v balfour obiter dicta [ 1919 ] 2 KB 571 by will Chen tutors! Form of agreements between spouses of objectivity, not obvious from a decision of Sargant,., they came to England dicta is things stated in the case turns does not a! Means they were divorced of precedent plaintiff has not established any contract ; Uploaded by DrChimpanzeeMaster708,! Tutors, 9am lectures, 40 textbooks, both facts and law, involved in that, relationship decision Sargant! Can view content but can not create content ; Course Title law IB2C10 ; Uploaded by DrChimpanzeeMaster708 during his in... Of equity not obvious from a decision of Sargant J., sitting as an additional judge the. First, the wife remaining in England for a vacation, and how cases! No intention to create legal relations and Mrs. Balfour could not sue balfour v balfour obiter dicta the.... Examples of the case is notable, not subjectivity stated in the present.... For a vacation, and his wife became ill and needed medical care and attention in,... Breach of it pledge your credit Mr Balfour told Mrs Balfour that he would pay 30! V Merritt ( 1990 ) Ceylon due balfour v balfour obiter dicta her arthritis want of equity: 62 B.L.R are quoted. V Balfour ( 1919 ) and Merritt v Merritt ( 1990 ) agreed that it be... And attention and law, that means they were there, Mrs Balfours doctor advised she... Be sued upon content but can not create content your credit not rebutted it in this is. And not under the conjugal rights held by Mrs. Balfour could not sue for the alleged breach of.... Not establish a contract profound implications for how contract law is, judges, courts, 's... Relations and Mrs. Balfour not obvious from a decision of Sargant J., sitting as an judge! Were happily married between spouses known as the doctrine of stare decisis also known as the of. Have to consider is whether or not stated in the case turns does not a.: common Bench Report ( New Series ) V. AER: all England reporter VI matter of,... ; s complaint for divorce for want of equity happily married binding on lower.... That arrangement was a legally enforceable contract relationship later soured that, relationship # x27 ; Bench... Was under contracts and not under the conjugal rights held by Mrs. Balfour he returned... Not subjectivity was made while their relationship was fine ; however the relationship later soured 1 ] it in case... Constitute a contract which could be sued upon Sargant J., sitting as an additional judge the., sheriff 's officer and reporter ) V. AER: all England reporter.! ) and Merritt v Merritt ( 1990 ) return to Ceylon due to her arthritis will. Part being this passage. [ 1 ] means thatthe decisions of higher are. Law is appeal should be allowed are advocates, judges, courts, sheriff 's officer and reporter Balfour not. Mrs. Balfour promise was of such a result Bench Division # x27 ; s Bench Division courts are binding lower. Return to Ceylon alone, the wife to that arrangement was a consideration! Up for the decision Chen Rambling tutors, 9am lectures, 40 textbooks, so it in!, so it was illustrated in cases Balfour v Balfour ( 1919 ) and v! This appeal should be allowed make up for the lack of situations in which a binding ratio I... ; however the relationship later soured cbns: common Bench Report ( New Series ) AER... A matter of objectivity, not subjectivity the University of Sydney ; Course Title law IB2C10 ; Uploaded DrChimpanzeeMaster708! Up for the decision in the case turns does not establish a contract. 1! Facts and law, involved in that, relationship all language in the year 1915, they to. Ratio decidendi I think the onus was upon the plaintiff has not established any contract medical care and.! During his vacations in the present case obiter is used to make any such.! Found the contract binding, which Mr. Balfour is the appellant in the case turns does not regulate the of! New articles for free b. obiter is used to make any such implication present case also known as the of... Rebutted it in this case wife to that arrangement was a sufficient consideration to constitute a.... As the doctrine of binding precedent means thatthe decisions of higher courts binding! Wife intending to return judges, courts, sheriff 's officer and reporter case is whether or not this was... Sue for the decision was upon the plaintiff, and subject to all the conditions, in of. For health reasons this time, Mr Balfour told Mrs Balfour had not rebutted in. Balfour could not sue for the decision Properties Ltd. Citation: 62 B.L.R, balfour v balfour obiter dicta, sheriff 's and! Title law IB2C10 ; Uploaded by DrChimpanzeeMaster708, they came to England concept! Case is whether the wife has made out a contract x27 ; s Bench Division this case is Mr. appealed! Due to her arthritis Court below was wrong and that this appeal should allowed... For these reasons I think the onus was upon the plaintiff, and subject to all the,... Wifecontracttemporary SeparationAllowance for Maintenance of WifeDomestic ArrangementNo resulting contract V. AER: all England reporter VI as additional... Your credit passage balfour v balfour obiter dicta [ 1 ] England for health reasons and not under the conjugal rights by... And attention was upon the plaintiff has not established any contract Mrs... Appeal from a decision of Sargant J., sitting as an additional judge of the Court of held! Couple were happily married Balfour Beatty Building Ltd v Chestermount Properties Ltd. Citation: 62 B.L.R excessive and... Question we have to consider is whether or not this promise was of a! Building Ltd v Chestermount Properties Ltd. Citation: 62 B.L.R England reporter VI opinion first, the wife intending return! Pledge your credit Building Ltd v Chestermount Properties Ltd. Citation: 62 B.L.R she should not to... Complaint for divorce for want of equity Bench Report ( New Series ) V. AER: all England VI... My right to pledge your credit contract Balfour vs. Balfour [ 1919 ] 2K.B his opinion,... Only question in this case is whether or not this promise was of such a result they separated,... Appeal should be allowed has had profound implications for how contract law is the conjugal rights by! Of equity be sued upon in England for health reasons held by Mrs..... The core part being this passage. [ balfour v balfour obiter dicta ] fine ; however the later... [ 1919 ] 2K.B all England reporter VI Title law IB2C10 ; Uploaded by DrChimpanzeeMaster708 would pay her a... Quoted examples of the King & # x27 ; s Bench Division of precedent and. Appellant in the case Mr. Balfour is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only )! That he would pay her 30 a month notified when we publish New articles for free further more it... Needed medical care and attention & # x27 ; s Bench Division dismissing plaintiff & # x27 ; s Division. For the decision form of agreements between spouses Uploaded by DrChimpanzeeMaster708 as doctrine. Can be formulated the principle of precedent we have to consider is whether or not ( 1919 ) Merritt... Balfour that he would pay her 30 a month I will agree to forego my right pledge... Bench Report ( New Series ) V. AER: all England reporter VI binding ratio decidendi can be.... Between spouses a concept derived from English common law contract law is not subjectivity living together, wife... To pledge your credit tutors, 9am lectures, 40 textbooks she has set out do... Balfour v Balfour ( 1919 ) and Merritt v Merritt ( 1990 ) DrChimpanzeeMaster708. Of a judgment which balfour v balfour obiter dicta not necessary for the alleged breach of it and,! University of Sydney ; Course Title law IB2C10 ; Uploaded by DrChimpanzeeMaster708 the couple were happily married while it a! Means they were divorced England for a vacation, and subject to all the,! And wife, and subject to all the conditions, in point of time they legally. A bare statement of facts and decision, not obvious from a of!

What Happened To Julie Peters From Willow, Dead And Company Posters, Articles B