In Cohen v. Knox (1891) 90 Cal. 266, a daughter sued her father's judgment creditor to restrain him from levying execution on property her father previously conveyed to her when she married. In affirming a judgment for plaintiff daughter, Cohen held that the conveyance of the property from the father to plaintiff daughter was not void as against the father's creditor. ( Cohen v. Knox, supra, 90 Cal. at pp. 273-274.) The only oral contract in Cohen was between the prospective spouses' fathers, who orally agreed that the future wife's father would convey a lot to his daughter and build a house for the couple if the future husband's father would furnish it. Both fathers executed these contractual obligations. ( Id. at p. 271.) Cohen thus did not involve either a cause of action to enforce an oral contract or a statute of frauds defense. In a brief reference to whether "an antenuptial contract" had to be in writing, Cohen stated: "We see nothing in the point that an antenuptial contract must be in writing. No question arises here as to the enforcement of a verbal contract which ought to have been in writing." ( Id. at p. 276.)