Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Of-Real-Property/Estoppel.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:03:39+00:00

Document:
2 Iowa, 551; Cain v. Cain, 23 Iowa, 31; Tooke v. Hardeman, 7 Ga. 20; Helme v. Strater, 52 N. J. Eq. 591, 30 Atl. 333; Stewart v. Stewart, 31 N. J. Eq. 398; Bannister v. Bannister, 37 S. C. 529, 16 S. E. 612. In some states a devise is presumed to be in lieu of dower, unless the contrary appears. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3244.
270 Stehlin v. Stehlin, 67 Hun, 110, 22 N. Y. Supp. 40; Sanford v. Jackson, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 266; Brown v. Caldwell, 1 Speers, Eq. (S. C.) 322; Cunningham v. Shannon, 4 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 135; Tooke v. Hardeman, 7 Ga. 20; Lord v. Lord, 23 Conn. 327; Cornell v. Ham, 2 Iowa, 552; Tobias v. Ketchum, 32 N. Y. 319; Lasher v. Lasher, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 106; In re Blaney's Estate, 73 Iowa 113, 34 N. W. 768; Mcgowen v. Baldwin, 46 Minn. 477, 49 N. W. 251; Hall v. Smith, 103 Mo. 289, 15 S. W. 621; Sumerel v. Sumerel, 34 S. C. 85, 12 S. E. 932; Rivers v. Gooding (S. C.) 21 S. E. 310; Carper v. Crowl, 149 111. 465, 36 N. E. 1040; Kelley v. Ball (Ky.) 19 S. W. 581; Richards v. Richards, 90 Iowa. 606, 58 N. W. 926; Bare v. Bare (Iowa) 59 N. W. 20; Parker v. Hayden, 84 Iowa, 493, 51 N. W. 248; Nelson v. Pomeroy, 64 Conn. 257, 29 Atl. 534; Schorr v. Etling, 124 Mo. 42, 27 S. W. 395.
271 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3264. Cf. Andrews v. Bassett, 92 Mich. 449, 52 N. W. 743; Payne v. Payne, 119 Mo. 174, 24 S. W. 781; Ford v. Ford, 88 Wis. 122, 59 N. W. 464; Draper v. Morris, 137 Ind. 169, 36 N. E. 714; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 89 Iowa, 388, 56 N. W. 517.
272 venable v. Railway Co. (Mo.) 19 S. W. 45. Cf. Whited v. Pearson, 90 Iowa, 488, 58 N. W. 32. But see Godwin v. King, 31 Fla. 525, 13 South. 108.
273 This may be by her own covenants, 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 261; Elmen-dorf v. Lockwood, .57 N. Y. 322; Mckee v. Brown, 43 111. 130; Rosenthal v. Mayhugh, 33 Ohio St. 155; or by those of her ancestor, 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 264; Torrey v. Minor, 1 Smedes & M. Ch. (Miss.) 489; Russ v. Perry, 49 N. H. 547.
274 Deshler v. Beery, 4 Dall. (Pa.) 300; Dongrey v. Topping, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 94; Smiley v. Wright, 2 Ohio, 506; Sweaney v. Mallory, 62 Mo. 485; Magee v. Mellon, 23 Miss. 585; Cf. Heisen v. Heisen, 145 111. 658, 34 N. E. 597; Boorum v. Tucker, 51 N. J. Eq. 135, 26 Atl. 456; Mecreary v. Lewis, 114 Mo.
Statute of Limitations and Laches.
582, 21 S. W. 855; Whiteaker v. Belt, 25 Or. 490, 36 Pac. 534. But see Mc-creery v. Davis (S. C.) 22 S. E. 178.
275 Durham v. Angier, 20 Me. 242; Hart v. Mccollum, 28 Ga. 478; Moore v. Frost, 3 N. H. 126; Taylor v. Lawrence, 148 111. 388, 36 N. E. 74; Boling v. Clark, S3 Iowa, 481, 50 N. W. 57.
276 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3271. And see Elyton Land Co. v. Denny, 96 Ala. 336, 11 South. 218; Hastings v. Mace, 157 Mass. 499, 32 N. E. 668; O'gara v. Neylon, 161 Mass. 140, 36 N. E. 743.
277 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 559; Owen v. Peacock, 38 111. 33; Whiting v. Nicholl, 46 111. 230; Proctor v. Bigelow, 38 Mich. 282; Care v. Keller, 77 Pa. St 487; Tuttle v. Willson, 10 Ohio, 24; Moody v. Harper, 38 Miss. 599; Tor-rey v. Minor, 1 Smedes & M. Ch. (Miss.) 489; Carmichael v. Carmichael, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 96; Kinsolving v. Pierce, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 782; Null v. Howell, 111 Mo. 273, 20 S. W. 24; Conover v. Wright, 6 N. J. Eq. 613; Berrien v. Couover, 16 N. J. Law, 107. But the statute is held not to begin to run until there is a denial of the widow's right. Rice v. Nelson, 27 Iowa, 148. And see Hart v. Randolph, 142 111. 521, 32 N. E. 517.
278 Jones v. Powell, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 194; Burt v. Sheep Co., 10 Mont 571, 27 Pac. 399; Campbell v. Murphy, 2 Jones, Eq. (N. C.) 357; Spencer v. Weston, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.) 213; Ralls v. Hughes, 1 Dana (Ky.) 407; Chapman v. Schroeder, 10 Ga. 321; Spencer v. Weston, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.) 213; Chew v. Farmers' Bank, 2 Md. Ch. 231.
279 Tuttle v. Willson, 10 Ohio, 24; Barksdale v. Garrett, 64 Ala. 277; Ralls v. Hughes, 1 Dana (Ky.) 407; Steiger's Adm'r v. Hillen, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 121; Chew v. Farmers' Bank, 9 Gill (Md.) 361; Kiddall v. Trimble, 1 Md. Ch. 143.
280 See 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3231 B, C. But see Willey v. Laraway, 64 Vt 559, 25 Atl. 436.
61. Dower, as it existed at common law, has been abolished in some states, and in others largely modified by statute.
In some states, dower has been abolished by statute. In the others, the common-law estate has been modified in many particulars.281 These statutory changes have been already considered in connection with the subjects to which they apply.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3244
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3264
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3271
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3231
 v.