Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-234-Proceedings-to-compel-assignment.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:52:58+00:00

Document:
Parks v. Siler, 76 N. C. 191; Schmitt v. Willis, 40 N. J. Eq. 515, 4 Atl. 767.
17. Bradshaw v. Callaghan, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 80.
18. Brewer v. Browne, 68 Ala. 210; Hill v. Gregory, 56 Miss. 341; Davis v. Patty, 76 Miss. 753. 25 So. 662; Coles v. Coles, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 329.
19-21 Leonard v. Motley, 75 Me. 418; Ward v. Gardner, 112 Mass. 42.
22. 2 Scribner, Dower. 91.
23. 2 Scribner, Dower, 114 et seq.; 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3274.
24. See 7 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 171.
25. 2 Scribner, Dower, 34, 119.
When a demand is necessary, it must be a personal one upon the tenant of the freehold, if he is acces26. 2 Scribner, Dower, 145 et seq.
27. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law. Sec. 3272; 2 Scribner, Dower (2d Ed.) 174 et seq.; 7 Enc. PI. & Pr. 186 et seq. The assignment by the probate court may in some states also be upon application of persons other than the widow, in which case it is not an adversary proceeding. See 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3273.
28. 2 Scribner, Dower, 109; Conover v. Wright, 6 N. J. Eq. 613; Jackson v. Churchill, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 287, 17 Am. Dec. 514; Sprague v. Stevens, 32 R. I. 361, 79 Atl. 972.
29. See Ford v. Erskine, 45 Me. 484; Burbank v. Day, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 557; Hasselman v. Allen, 42 Ind. 257; Davis v. Walker, 42 N. H. 482.
Except as otherwise provided by statute, the damages recoverable as against the heir or devise are usually to be estimated from the time of the husband's death.38 Statutes allowing damages against the hus31. Luce v. Stubbs, 35 Me. 92; Pond v. Johnson, 9 Gray (Mass.) 193. A demand on the tenant of the freehold is sufficent, though he convey it before suit is begun. Barker v. Blake. 36 Me. 433; Watson v. Watson, 10 C. B. 3; Parker v. Murphy, 12 Mass. 485.
32. Co. Litt. 32b; Baker v. Baker, 4 Me. 67; Page v. Page, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 196. The commencement of suit has been regarded as a sufficient demand. Strawn v. Strawn, 50 111. 256; Killackey v. Killackey, 166 Mich. 311, 131 N. W. 519; Cowan v. Lindsey, 30 Wis. 586.
33. Watson v. Watson, 10 C. B. 3; Luce v. Stubbs. 35 Me. 92; Lothrop v. Foster, 51 Me. 367.
But it has been held that a power of attorney is insufficient for the purpose unless the premises are sufficiently identified therein. Sloan v. Whitman, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 532.
34. Haynes v. Powers, 22 N. H. 590; Atwood v. Atwood, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 283; Bear v. Snyder, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 592.
35. Statute of Merton, 20 Hen. 1ll, c 1 (A. D. 1235). See Co. Litt. 32b; Park, Dower, 301.
36. 1 Stimson'e Am. St. Law, Sec. 3278; 2 Scribner, Dower, 700.
37. 2 Scribner, Dowor, 704.

References: 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. 
 v. 
 v.