Case ID: yeates_1/html/0387-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Jane Sharp against William Pettit.
    Where the lands of the husband whereof he is seized in fee tail during marriage, are sold on judgments obtained against him, and he afterwards suffers a common recovery without making his wife a party, or her executing the deed to lead the uses, and she survives him, she is not barred of her dower.
    Dower of 250 acres of land in Sadbury township. Plea, ne unques seisie que dower, with leave to give the special matters in evidence.,'
    
      Cited in 4 S. & R., 537, and 13 Pa., 528,
    The case in effect was: Joseph Sharp married the demand-ant, and afterwards became seized of the lands in fee tail under the will of his father.
    In 1784 two judgments were obtained against him, and the sheriff on the 30th September 1785, sold and conveyed the premises to Thomas Allen, who conveyed to the tenant. In Eebruary term 1788, a common recovery was suffered in the Common Pleas of Chester county, without making the de-mandant a party, or her executing the deed to lead the uses, or any separate examination of the feme. The uses were declared to be for Pettit. Joseph Sharp died in 1790, and the question was, whether under these proceedings the widow was barred of her dower.
    Mr. Roberts, pro dem. Mr. J. Ross, pro tenente.
    
    The point was not stirred again in bank, but damages and costs being afterwards given by an inquisition on a writ of inquiry, the same was set aside by the court in September term 1800, and judgment was rendered for the demandant on the writ of seisin.
   Per curiam.

Dower is not only a legal but a moral right, and is highly favoured. A woman shall be endowed even of an estate tail determined. Co. Lit. 31. b. The life estate of the baron could only be sold by the sheriff, independent of the common recovery. Until that procedure took place, Joseph Sharp could convey no greater right than he himself had, nor could the sheriff sell more than he (Sharp) could convey. The right of the feme to dower is not affected by this common recovery. She was no party thereto; nor has she executed the deed to lead the uses, nor been separately examined. As to her therefore, the proceedings are void, though if properly conducted, they may bar the issue in tail. The. demandant, under our opinion, is entitled to her dower; but if the tenant is dissatisfied therewith, he may move us in bank for a new trial, on the point of misdirection.

Verdict for the demandant.