The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-06-02
SUPREME COURT.

The Juno Term Opens To-day-some In
teresting Questions.
The June term of the supreme court
opens to-day at noon. There are a number
of cases set for hearing involving many in
teresting questions. One Of the PROPOSE
tions which the court will be called upon to
decide is the right of a woman to sue for
her dover In her husbands estate after the
lapse OF i've years. The case
in which this question is brought
up is entitled Mrs. L. D. Burt against the
@. w. Cook Sheep company. Mira. Burt
was formerly the wife of Henry s. Critten-
den, He conveyed 16O acres of land in
Meagher county, but his wife did not join
in the deed. Her husband died in 1877.
Mrs. Burt sued the sheep company in
MeaRhey county, but lost the case.
The action is for the recovery of the pos
session of some real estate in Mesgher
county, in which case it requires q seizin of
the plaintiff or his grsntor within five years
previous to the bringing of the action.
This is the general statute of Limitation,
and tho question arises whether such stat
utes constitute a bar to the recovery of
The contention OF tho appellant ia that the
statute is no bar to the action for the re-
oovsry of dover, for the reason that the
wife has no seizin, never was seized of the
property in which she claims u dover inter
est. Her selzin or right to selzin or pos
session does not come through her hus-
band, but is conferred upon her by opera
ton of law; and it becomes the duty of the
heir at law, or the vendee of the husband,
upon the death of the husband to set of
and allot to the wife her dover in the real
estate, and unless dover is allotted or as
the possession of the land, the statute of
limitations does not begin to run against
che widow until right of entry into posses
sion Of the land is first fixed and deter
mined by the act of the heir or vendee in
allotting the dover. 1t is commended tina
the right OF dover is not barred by limita-
ton. unless it is expressly 80 stated in the
statutes. A numbe of decisions are cited
to the effect that the general
statutes of limitation of Henry
VIII. and James l.. which have
generally been adopted by the states OF the
union, do not constitute any bar to the
wife's recovery of dover, Notwithstanding
the length of time that may lave run since
the land was alienated. There are some
authorities which hold that the wife's right
to dover is barred by general statutes of
limitation. in which the dover is not OK
pressly named. The authorities cited for
the defendants, that the action of the wife
for dover 10 barred by the general statutes
of limitation. are from those states which
have some statutory provisions giving to
the wife az dover, upon the death of her
husband, the mansion house, and generally
one-third of the lands to be allotted them.
adjoining and including the home
stead; and in such cases, upon the
death of her husband, the
widow is by law deemed in possession of
her dover n a tenant in common with
the heir at law. The following states have
the statutory provisions referred to: New
jersey, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Ala
bama. Mississippi, Virginia, Missouri, Ar
kansas and Ohio.