Case ID: ny_223/html/0552-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nelly T. Roessle, Respondent, v. Elwood O. Roessle et al., Appellants.
    
      Roessle v. Roessle, 171 App. Div. 944, affirmed.
    (Argued February 15, 1918;
    decided March 5, 1918.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 28, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought by the widow of Theophilus E. Roessle to admeasure dower in certain real estate in New York city, and for the recovery of damages for the withholding of the same. The amended answers set up three defenses: 1. That under the laws of the District of Columbia, where the said Theophilus E. Roessle resided and was domiciled at the time of the making of his will and at the time of his death, any devise or bequest to a widow was construed as intended in bar of her dower; that she had received the proceeds of real estate situated in the District of Columbia and in the state of New York and also personal property under the will, and had thereby elected to take the same in lieu of her dower. 2. That the plaintiff was, by her own acts, estopped from claiming dower. 3. By clear and manifest implication of the will, independently of considerations outside it, the claim of dower was repugnant to its dispositions and that she had elected to take gifts under the will in lieu of her dower.
    
      Marcus T. Hun for Marion L. McKinney, appellant.
    
      John Ewen for Elwood 0. Roessle, appellant.
    
      Joseph H. Choate, Jr., for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Crane and . Andrews, JJ. Dissenting: Pound, J. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.