The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-01-06

and marked Exhibit ~"
On about the ID day of April 1896 the said Florence F.
Luce then ntenarried she now the wife
Of C. V T. Dove in accordance with the laws of the Hawaiian
Islands That the 18th Of March, 1899 the said NJ d. Mon
sold and by deed of conveyance conveyed the said
Buckley and John J. Sullivan his undivided oneffth
share of the said land Union street, Honolulu and by said
deed of conveyance he together with the other parties
deed covenanted with said John Buckley j. Su
van that he had good right sell and convey them the said
undivided onefth share Of the land described in the said deed
of and that such share free Of and from all in
copy said deed of conveyance hereto
nexed and marked Exhibit B.
1t IS admitted that Mrs Dove had remained the wife of the
said NJ d. Monsarrat she would have been entitled upon his
DEATH if then living dover interest in the property sold
to the said John Buckley and John J. Sullivan
also admitted that if the said Florence f. Dove had
tnued the wife of the said NJ d. Monsara and such deed Of
conveyance the said John Buckley and John j. Sullivan had
executed without her joining release her dover with
releasing her dover by separate agreement this omission
would have caused breach Of the in the said deed of
conveyance against membranes and brought
said John Buckley and John j. Sullivan would have been
titled to damages.
The question for submission to the court i:
1st Has Mrs. Dove by her divorce from the said NJ ID.
Monsarrt and her subsequent re-marrage with the said c. v
T. Dove forfeited her right dover in the piece of land
veyed by said NJ d. Monsarra the said John Buckley and
John ]. Sullivan?
This question has been passed upon by many
writer's all, however, arriving the conclusion. The
weight authority that she has claim dover Many
states have preserved her right to dover by statute.
In Barrett Fdilng III t. s 524 Mr. Justice Gray says:
Unless otherwise provided by local law decree of divorce by
court having jurisdiction Of the and of the parties dis
solving the bonds of marmony puts end to all obligations Of
either party the other and right which either has
qured by the marriage IN the others property except far
the granting the divorce in the exercise of authority
granted by the legislature orders property to be transferred
almOny to be paid by party to the other 1t has
from Inc of
mony for the fault of either party cuts off the wfe right of
DOVER and the husbands tenancy by the crte unless
ly or implicitly preserved by statute"
Bell Z. Snlaey 45 n. j. Eq. AS, a where a will
directed that in AS wife shall survive him annual pay
ment shall be made her during her ridOhOOd but shall
at her remarriage her DEATH it was held that if and his
wife divorced that when dies the who his
wife does not become his widow she will not be entitled to the
legacy The court says: The period Tor which the gift Is to
continue in force during her wdowhood At her emarage
her death, the will the principal shall be distributed
SO that perfectly clear that the testarx that Hannah
should only take while she remained the widow of Francis and
it necessarily follows that the condition became uch
prior the death of Francis that she did not widow
by his DEATH she has and have the character
in which alone she take By the decree of divorce she be-
fe SOLE and COULD the day after that decree
pronounced, have lawfully contracted a new marriage
she his wife when he died but fe sole and
quently did not become his widow by his DEATH"
Rice LuLy 10 Oh. St 500 "DOwer provided for by
statute in Ohio and only allowed to the WdO,o who the
wife of the person dying the time of his death who
has obtained divorce for the fault OF the husband and after
ward married another after the first husbands DEATH
entitled dover in his real In such the dover
not lost by of forfeiture; but divorced rincdO
atrmon from her first husband and by subsequent marriage
wife man. the time of the death of the person
who had been her first husband the widow of the latter
within the of the relating DOVER Two judges
dissenting holding that she was entitled to DOVER
The of Rice LuDley based Statute Of 1924,
concerning divorce and amony which provided at when the
of divorce shall arise from the aggression of the wife, she
shall be barred of her right of DOVER See LdR Knapp
ST. later of 1S4O the right of dover
preserved in of divorce through fault of husband The
however, that t would that the weight of
authority in this country where there is statute affecting the
question: in accordance with the holding in Rice LuIoy
40 Oh $3.50 that DOVER only allowed the UidOO who
the cG of the person dying the time of his death citing
Scrbner Dover 80; Bishop Mar. Div, ed Sec gel;
ed. Sec. zoo.
Gould q. Cror 81 No The Court says: after dis
solution (of the marriage by decree of dvorce) neither
party claim rights dependent upon Its continued existence
hIh ms lands