The Yazoo City Whig and political register. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1842-1844, 1843-06-16
VOL. 7, No. 49.-Whole No. 352.

dowed OF land held by her husband and an
other as partnership properly?
On the first point il is suggested that the
language of our statute, anthorising relin-
qulshments of dover interests is general,
excerpts no class Of femes,coFert, and having
been designed To- reaaga general evil,
should be so construed as 10 rles4 the whole
mischief.
The territorial law from which ours is CO.
pied contains provision excluding infant
temes covert from its operation. The Ian
Iguage Of our act without the proViso, having
thus been construed as broad enough TO en-
brace such infants, our legislature, in drop
ping the proviso, plainly intended to clothe
them with some powers in this respect, as if
they were adults-or in other words they
bust have adopted The language Of our sta
tute with the Specification attached to it
when first used under the territorial govern
ment
! As to the second point it is urged that
portion of the money paid for these lots 10
/ Markham & Galloway must have been paid
in consideration of the REIMBURSEMENT pro
fantO, induced each purchaser TO part with
! Deir money by her act, she is to be regard
. as party to a contract executed on the
part of such purchasers, and upon principles
/ long settled she cannot avoid the contract
without restoring TO each purchaser proper
proportion Of the consideration which they
paid.-2nd Kent 240: Z Gown R. l79:
Is Mass. r. $50: 1st N. II. r. 10: 6 Ibid,
800.
In the third place il is insisted that as 70
the lots held and conveyed by Markham &
I Galloway as partnership property, and for
firm purposes, il constituted fund dedica-
ted and set apart to be applied for specific
Ipurposes,t TO which the appellant had no claim
of dover.
The authorities on this point are numer-
Gus and respectable. Woodbridge VS.. Will
lkins, Sd How, $50: Green VS.. Green, Ohio
r. 244: Craigvs Scribe, Sd Wheaton, 500:
Sgourney vs.. Mum, 7th Conn. IL, Sd Bro.
Oh. Gas. ll9: Thornton VS.. Dixon, Smith
, Vs..Smith, Yesey, 169: Ripley vs.. Water
worth, Yes. 424: LIST Its. e. 624: 3rd
Kent Com. 37-S-9.
II is therefore insisted that the decree Of
the court below should be confirmed.
SHARKEY, Chief Justice, delivered the
J opinion of the Court.
; The appellant filed her petition in the
Probate Court of Yazoo county playing that
dover might be allotted her in certain lands
and town lots of which her husband Lineous
: Is Markham had been seized during cover
ture, particularly specifying each tract of
+ land and town lot. Her claim was resisted
by the appellees Merritt and four others.
: all holding separate lots in the town Of
Manchester, and the court having decFeed
in favor of the aPpellees, this appeal was
taken.
! The appellees all except one insisted in
q their separate answers that Markham was
pot 10 his lifetime seized of the lots claimed
them, except as partner with Vincent
galloway. and also on Accomplishments made
py demandant To avoid the relinuuish-
nents the demandant replied infancy. which
Pelng fully sustained by the proof. and no
ubsequent act of ratification shown, cannot
20 seriously questioned. 1t is insisted how
'ver that before she can be entitled TO dow
y, she must restore proper proportion of
he purchase money, and secondly. that she
not entitled TO dover because the lands
md town lots were purchased and sold as
partnership property.
wherever the contracts of infants are
A''~tS4yS aHCy are IL some ms taHCee
lequlred TO restore the consideration Fecei
- we'd before they are allowed 10 avoid them
= thus IN executed contracts for chattels, the
r. purchase money must be restored, and per
= haps the same rule might be Justly appliec
u y as 70 real estate. When goods have beer
y sold to an infant on a credit, if he wish &
y rescind, he must restore them.
~ But in this instance We have no eyidenc,
n that Mrs. Markham received any thing. an,
- her right to dover cannot therefore be Ola
ced on the condition that she paw back
II We have seen no authority which wonl,
y Justify US in holding her bound 10 pay bacl
- a part Of the purchase money received b
~ her husband. Her case therefore must tur
~ ~ exclusively on the other question, to wits.
~ ~ & the wife entitled TO dover in lands whic
q. Markham in his lifetime ia partnership wit
cs' V. Galloway held, and which were sold al
ring coveTture?. We hold the affirmative
O's this proposition, and think that under Ii
say circumstances Of the case there can be- /
doubt about the correctness Of our concl
for sion.
the Il is true there may be cases in which
by wife will not be entitled TO dover 81 Ian
be held IN partnership, but the reason is obyio
i q and cannot apply il case like the presel
re When land IS held BY firm, and IS esss
% tial 70 the purpose and objects Of the 81
en- norship,1 'hen i is regarded as part Of /