Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-07-12
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY ". B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virginian-Pilot)
BROWN ". MORISEY.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
March %, 1899.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
"a March %, 1899.
ADVERSE POSSESSION WILL RUN
i AGAINST A WIDOWS RIGHT TO
DOVER, WHERE THE PERSON IN
POSSESSION CLAIMS ADVERSE
TO. AND NOT UNDER, HER HUS-
BAND.
HSOLE POSSESSION AND ENJOY
MENT OF LAND FOR THE STATU-
TORY PERIOD CONSTITUTES AID
VERSE POSSESSION.
81 This was an action by PLAINTIFF to
have her dover allotted to her. There
i was Judgment for defendant and
2 plaintiff appealed. The facts sufficient
ly appear in the opinion of the court.
The court says:
This is a proceeding for dover. and
= defendant denies plaintiffs right. al
leges title In himself, and pleads adj
verse possession, lapse Of time, statute
OF limitations, and release. Upon the
trial the plaintiff showed that she was
unmarried to George Brown In 1854: a deed
to him, dated in September, 1854, con-
veying the land in controversy to him
On fee simple; that he entered upon said
land, and built n house. and cleared and
cultivated n part of the land, and that
T. she and her said husband lived on 1t
for more than 4 year, when they left
the land. and her husband left the
State. and died in 1860 or 1861; that,
4soon after plaintiff and her husband
left the land, the defendant entered. and
has lived there ever since, clearing, Gull
= tivating. and using the land as his
own. The defendant offered no deed or
28other written evidence of title. but re-
a. lied on his long continued possession,
which, he contends, gives him n title
lin fee simple to the land. When the
: plaintin showed her marriage. a deed
: In fec simple to her husband, and his
death. this gave her prima facie n right
% TO dover. And she contends that de-
PENDANT has shown nothing that rebuts
Hthis presumption OF prlma facie right
to dover; that he has shown nothing
but his long-continued possession, and
this Is no bar to her right to dover;
That the lapse OF time and the statute
OF limitations does not run against a
right OF dower.-citIng Spencer v.
80 Weston's Heirs, IS N. C. 213 and Camp
bell v. Murphy. 90 N. C. 357. This doc
trine Is announced In these cases, and
is n correct application of the law to
- them, but, as we think. it would not be
70 THIS case. In those cases the de-
5 PENDANTS claimed title under the hus-
band. In this case. the defendant does
not claim under the husband, but ad-
verse to his title Where the defend
ants claim under the husband Gas heirs
n or asslgnees). they cannot dispute the
title OF the husband. as they claim I'M
der him. And while the widow does not
" claim dover under the husband, she
claims 1t under the same title that the
heirs and assignees claim, by force ana
operation of the law OF DOVER Upon
r. her marriage she acquired an inchoate
right OF dover, which the husband
could not destroy or defeat. Upon the
s. death of the husband this inchoate
: she mas no estate until dover Is assign
ed; and when this Is done she acquires
no new estate. but only the possession
e. and enjoyment OF the inchoate right
she acquired by reason OF her marriage.
ripened into an estate. Her dover right.
ana her dover when assigned, are a
= prolongation OF her husbands estate in
= her for the term of her life. Norwood
r V. Marrow, 20 N. c. AS. The estate de-
scends to the heir subject to this incum-
brance, and, as he takes it subject to
= TINS incumbrance he cannot hold or
8 claim the estate adversely thereto; and.
II as he cannot hold adversely to tho
= right OF dover when he holds and
= claims the estate under the same title
tEat the widow claims dover. the
- statute does not run. 1t is the same as
grant In fee simple, reserving a life
estate; and, as the grantee holds his
estate under the grantor, he cannot
III ~f-~'''A ~ hpid ehlNerSely 10 the estate
served, and the statute of limitations
ooes not run. But this doctrine does
not OBTAIN In this case, where the de-
ienoant does not claim under the hus-
Dand as heir or asr ;rnee, but claims to
J. mold adversely t. q husband Of tho
plaintiir' and b amount title. We
see no reason may not do this
If the defendant a deed conveying
title paramount 10 that Of the hus.
nand OF the plaintiff, it is admitted that
TINS would defeat her right of dover.
90 IL ne mad shown a deed from a
3 stranger, and an adverse possession
d hereunder since he went into possess
slon' 1t would have ripened into a per
rect title as against the husband, if he
were iVing. And so would a continued
ADVERSE possession. without color of I'll
TIE. from 1857 or 1865 until the com
mencement OF this action. in 1896. have
Ilpened into perfect title against tho
husband. And there being no reason
tnat we see, why The lapse of time and
.ne statute of limitation should not
count against the husband (the defend
ant noL hoiding Under HIND. and the
i p t risnt dover being n con-
tinuation of the stands estate H,o
zee s no reason she Is not also
barred. She car be entitled to dow
er unless her h nd was the owner
OF the lard, and &c theory Of the de-
Ierse Is that, thorah he had a deed. he
was never the owner of the land; and
as the defendant has shown title in
hirnself 1t must he held to be nara
mount to that OF the husband. II was
salu on the argument that, while the
Susc showed that the defendant had
peen N possession all this time. cut
ing, clearing. and cultivating the land
as ms own. 1t was not shown that hc
th eao adversely. This, 1t seems to us, is