
    Woodworth v. Williams.
    1. Evidence: failure of: judgment affirmed. Plaintiff having failed to prove the oral contract on which her action was based, the Judgment against her is affirmed.
    
      Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court.
    
    Friday, April 24.
    
    The'plaintiff and defendant were formerly husband and wife. They did not live happily together, and separated, and were divorced. No alimony was provided for by the decree, the parties having made what was supposed to be an equitable arrangement as to the division of the property. Two written contracts were entered into between them in relation to the property. In the last contract the defendant bound himself to convey to plaintiff an interest in certain land held by some minor children, or pay her the value thereof when they should arrive at age. This suit is brought for an alleged breach of this undertaking. The plaintiff alleges that the interest of said children in said land was sold at guardian’s sale, and that plaintiff became the purchaser under an oral agreement with defendant that he would repay to her the purchase-money paid by her. There was a trial to the court, and a judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
    
      Scott <& Stuart, for appellant.
    
      G. A. Holmes, for appellee.
   Bothrook, J.

The plaintiff was the defendant’s second wife. His first wife was plaintiff’s sister. There were five children by the first marriage, and they are all minors. These children had an interest in certain land which they inherited from their mother. The defendant was their guardian. His written contract with the plaintiff was that he would convey the interest of the children, or pay its value, to the plaintiff, when the children should arrive at age. Afterwards he made an application as guardian for the sale of the interest of the children in the land, and rit was sold under order of the court, and plaintiff became-the purchaser. She claims that the defendant verbally agreed that if she would buy in the interest of the minors, and pay for it, he would pay back to plaintiff the sum paid by her. The case turns upon this. question of fact, and we think the district court correctly found that the evidence did not establish the verbal agreement. Having failed to establish this agreement, it follows that no right of action had accrued under the written contract, the children not yet being of age. Whether these contracts are void as made between husband and wife, and against public policy, and whether they were with or without legal consideration, we do not determine.

Affirmed.  