The consideration was adequate and the transaction was fair and equitable to her. There were no grounds justifying annulment of the agreement. Norrell v. Thompson, 252 Ala. 603, 42 So.2d 461; Decker v. Decker, 253 Ala. 345, 44 So.2d 435; Rash v. Bogart, 226 Ala. 96, 146 So. 814; Herzfeld v. Hayne, 200 Ala. 615, 76 So. 973; Holczstein v. Bessemer T. S. Bank, 223 Ala. 271, 136 So. 409. SIMPSON, Justice.
The mere inadequacy, alone, is never sufficient to vitiate a contract or conveyance valid, and the courts are not disposed to enter upon nice calculations to strike a balance on the one side or the other. Norrell v. Thompson, 252 Ala. 603, 42 So.2d 461, 462 [ (Ala.1949) ]. Absolute equality is not to be hoped for, and is seldom attained in men's dealings one with the other. Nor is consideration to be measured in terms of dollars and cents alone; convenience, avoidance of troublesome details and efforts are proper elements.
The mere inadequacy, alone, is never sufficient to vitiate a contract or conveyance otherwise valid, and the courts are not disposed to enter upon nice calculations to strike a balance on the one side or the other. Norrell v. Thompson, 252 Ala. 603, 42 So.2d 461, 462. Absolute equality is not to be hoped for, and is seldom attained in men's dealings one with the other.
The mere inadequacy, alone, is never sufficient to vitiate a contract or conveyance otherwise valid, and the courts are not disposed to enter upon nice calculations to strike a balance on the one side or the other. Norrell v. Thompson, 252 Ala. 603, 42 So.2d 461, 462. Absolute equality is not to be hoped for, and is seldom attained in men's dealings one with the other.
(Emphasis added.)Merchants' National Bank of Mobile v. Hubbard, 222 Ala. 518, 524, 133 So. 723, 738 (1931); King v. Reid, supra; Allison v. Stevens, 269 Ala. 288, 112 So.2d 451 (1959); Norrell v. Thompson, 252 Ala. 603, 42 So.2d 461 (1949); McCollough v. McCollough, 237 Ala. 77, 185 So. 417 (1938); Dutton v. Swann, 219 Ala. 425, 122 So. 636 (1929); Richter v. Richter, 180 Ala. 218, 60 So. 880 (1913). As the Court noted in Merchants' National Bank of Mobile, "[a]n unadvised election is upon the same basis as an election procured by fraud."
The mere inadequacy, alone, is never sufficient to vitiate a contract or conveyance otherwise valid, and the courts are not disposed to enter upon nice calculations to strike a balance on the one side or the other. Norrell v. Thompson, 252 Ala. 603, 42 So.2d 461, 462. Absolute equality is not to be hoped for, and is seldom attained in men's dealings one with the other.
Mere inadequacy of consideration is not a sufficient ground for setting aside and rescinding a contract. Edwards v. Gordon, 221 Ala. 473, 129 So. 43; Decker v. Decker, 253 Ala. 345, 44 So.2d 435; Clark v. McGinn et al., 268 Ala. 252, 105 So.2d 668; Norrell v. Thompson, 252 Ala. 603, 42 So.2d 461. A bill in equity merely setting up a claim and showing no circumstances of complication or difficulty in way of adequate relief at law does not make out a case for equitable accounting. Friedman v. Fraser, 157 Ala. 191, 47 So. 320; Merrill v. Ritch, 235 Ala. 155, 177 So. 886; Ex parte Adams Construction Co., 251 Ala. 347, 37 So.2d 497.
Cragford Bank v. Cummings, 216 Ala. 377, 113 So. 243. This construction is placed upon this statute because under the common law the husband is presumed to be the dominant of the two parties to the marriage and it is assumed that it was necessary to protect the wife's interest in connection with her property by such statute. Norrell v. Thompson, 252 Ala. 603, 42 So.2d 461; Merchants' National Bank of Mobile v. Hubbard, 222 Ala. 518, 133 So. 723, 74 A.L.R. 646. If the husband is the dominant party in a marriage, which the law presumes is the state of facts, the wife is incapable of exercising undue influence upon him; but the presumption that the husband is the dominant party is merely a presumption, and it is rebuttable. Wherever the evidence is sufficient to rebut this presumption, and to show undue influence exercised by the wife against the husband, courts of equity will intervene to protect against such undue influence. "One of the questions which the Court must decide in resolving the issues in this case, is whether or not C. A. Barnett and Dera Barnett were lawfully married, or whether they were living in an illicit relationship.
In suit to have antenuptial contract declared void, conditions existing at time of execution of contract should be set forth so that it may be determined whether contract was fair and equitable from wife's standpoint. Norrell v. Thompson, 252 Ala. 603, 42 So.2d 461; Webb v. Webb's Heirs, 29 Ala. 588, 600. C. L. Rowe, Elba, J. W. Brassell, Phenix City, and Brown McMillan, Opelika, for appellee.
Antenuptial and postnuptial contracts are scrutinized by the courts because of the confidential relationship of the parties, and certain safeguards have been declared as necessary to protect the interests of the wife or intended wife, under the theory that the husband is the dominant of the two parties. Norrell v. Thompson, 252 Ala. 603, 42 So.2d 461. Unquestionably the wife, the plaintiff below, had the right to the immediate possession of the policies.