Constantine republican. [volume] (Constantine, Mich.) 1836-1838, 1837-02-08
LEGISLATURE OF MICHIGAN.
IN SENATE,
Wednesday, January 10. 1897.

dover.
Mr.. Mickey in tho chair.
Mr.. McDonell offered an amendment to the
bill, to add an additional section.
Mr.. Raynale moved to strike out all after tn
cnacting clause.
Mr.. Mcdonnell hoped the motion would be with
drawn, for tho purpose of introducing amend
ments. If the bill would be saluta-y he would
support tiff it were likely to be injurious III its
effects he would oppose il.
Mr.. Mundy wished TO hear the general reasons
for its adoption-the bill proposes to make tho
rough innovation in the laws respecting DOVER
he wished the rlmsrs Of the bill to give their
sons for those Innovations.
Mr.. Ellis hoped the motion would not prevail
until some discussion was had on The subj CT 1t
was an important subject.
Mr.. Barry said, suppose the motion TO strike
out is but in Other words, to call on the friends
of the bill to show reasons why it should pass. |
bslieve IL is fair that before the vote is tikcn that
the principles involved should be discussed aud
will endsavor to show my reasons for sustain
ing the bill IL will then be necessary in the
first place, to inquire what is Dowerl 1t exists
where man is seized of an inheritance and dies
in tn, lifetime of his wife, In that case she is
entitled ut common law to be endowed for her ma
tural life one-third part of all the lands whereof
her husband was seizsd during couerture. This
~ Tic gwen ny SndncSllOT Nent
In the tim, Of Gllnvill, it was limited to tn,
third pirt of the freehold lands which the hus-
band had at the time Of marriage. Among the
Anglo Saxons, dover consisted not in lands bu.
in goods. Dover in lands Was not introduced in
TO England until after the Norman conquest In
Scotland the widow is entitled to dover only in
tho lands of which her husband died seiz ID.
1t is, believe, question to this day among
lawyers, whether widow is entitled to dove. at
-. Ill "a 4 n
of no statute adopting the common law in rela-
ton to DOVER
Ths ordnance of 1887, which we have been
taught to look upon as the magma charta of our
political rights, prcscribes the rules of descents,
and adds "siying in all cases to the widow of the
intestate her third part of the real estate for life
and one third part of the personal estate; and
this law relative TO descsnts and dover shall re-
main in full force until altered by the egslitu
Of the district" Our statute merely says on this
important subject, (pag, 3)9) "Tnat the widow
of the dece lsed shall, in all cases. be entit,d to
her dover in the real estate when she shill not
hive been otherwise endowed before mlrri g."
So far as l am informed this provision Of the or
dinancc and this single item from statute book,
embr races all the legislative power now of force
in this State on the subject of dover. Whether
fair construction of this enactment would give
to tn, widow right of dover in all th5 lands of
which the husband was seized during coverture,
or whether it would restrict that right TO the lands
of which her husband died sez 3D. shall moi now
take upon me TO determine. That th,re is doubt
and uncertainty on the subj ,ct will hardly be
denied; and when any part OF our laws becomes
uncertain and unsettled, l think all will agr.e
with me that it is the duty of the Legislators to
sttle and determine all such controversial points.
Some statutory provision, therefore, so impor-
tant subject as dover, think, is imperatively
demanded. What should be the character of
tn It provision of course it is not for me to say
the voice of the whole legislature must fix and
determine il.
The bill now under consideration is drawn up
on this supposition that the common law doctrn,
in relation to dover is of fore, in the ST tic.
The alteration which il proposes to make consists
in restricting thu right of dover TO those .nds of
which tho husbind did seized. In no other res.
p,ct is change contemplated.
In most of the Stats Of this confederacy the
common Inv on the subject of dover has been
adopted, but in most casts, with various modi.
6ca.ions and restrictions In Now Hampshire,
Massac husetts and NJ line, the widow is not en-.
titled to dover in uncultivltod lands not connect.
ed with improved farms. In Tennessec and P,nn-
sylvania the ttls to dover does not apply TO lands
sold under judicial proc ,ss or under mortgage.
In the State of Missouri the widow is not entitled
to dover in the lands of her husband until after
his d ,bts ara first paid. In Vermont, Connect
cut, New Hampshire, Ohio, Tennessee, North
Carolina and Georgia, tho title of the widow to
dover applies only to lands of which her hus-
blnd died seiz ID, and the provisions of this bill
precisely in accordance with the law as adopt.
cd by these States. This restriction upon the
right Of dover am of opinion is wise and salu-
tary In its effects Kent says 9Th, claim of
dover attaching upon all the lands whereof the
husband WIS saiz d at any time during couerture,
is a severe dormant incumbr lnce upon the use and
circulation of real property. In point of fact, il
is of little or no unless the hush md dies s,iz-
ed. The existence of tn, title only serves to in
crease the expense and multiply the forms of
alterations; and consequently in several of these
United States, the title to dover has been educ ID
down, and am inclined to think wisely, to tho
lands whereof the husband died sezed"
Such, sir, is the opinion of one of the most
eminent jurists of Amsrici, and whose opinions
on questions of municipal Jurisprudence are en-.
titledto attention and respect from al. He thinks
that the restriction of the right of dover to lands
Of which ths husband died s,iz I'd is a wise provi
sion ; and who, sir, is better able or more CON-
petent to advs, on subject of this natur, than
III, late Chanc sllor of New York; To what
source can we look for counsel better or more #?
Most of the States, as l have already shown,
have made some mod ific atoms of the common law
in relation 10 dover; and eight of them hav
adopted tn, simo provisions as are contained in
the bill now upon your desk, and on the m ,rits of
which we are now to decide. would not 90 SO
( ir as the legislature of Missouri have gone-ths
bill does not 60 SO far. In Missouri all debts
must be lid before the right Of dover attaches
by this bill the right Of dover tlkcs ecodonce
Of debts, and applies to all lands of which the
hush md died soiz d.
By the passage of the bill we do not deprive
the widow of her dover nor of any just right
We settle the law by defining in what her dover
shall consist-we encirclc with light what was
before shroud,d with darkness.
Far from me bs the thought and tho wish to de-
prive the widow and the orphan of any inheri.
lance to which they ar, justly entitled. But, sir,
is it right, is it just, is 1t in accordance with tn.
principles of our government TO extend the right
Of dover or to permit it to extend to lands which
the husband in the lifetime has sold, and for
which he has received a just compensation In
common with her husband, tho widow during
their joint lives enjoyed tn, benefits of the pro-
ceeds, and after his death she will receive due
proportion for her separate support.
The reasons that induced tho adoption of the
custom in England do not apply to Michig IN.
There land is mlttsr OF great consideration
il is not bought and soll as article of merchan-
dis,, as il is with us. The continuance Of tbs.
custom here tends to embarriss and clog the or.
binary business of by far, tho greatest portion of
our population. To obtain the cons mt and signi.
ture OF tho wife with that of the husband in the
transfer of real estate, is often attended with
serious Inconvenience and great expense.
These, sir, are some of tho reasons that induce
me to support tho bill. Tint in somo instlhc rs
evil may grow out of tho system proposed 10 DO
adopted, / SD all not deny. 1 shall not however,