Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Proceedings-to-compel-assignment-Continued.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:43:16+00:00

Document:
Compare Brown v. Morisey, 126 N. C. 772. 36 S. E. 284; Whitaker v. Greer, 129 Mass. 417; Strawn v. Strawn's Heirs, 50 111. 256.
Under the statute of Merton damages could be recovered against the heir only from the time of demand, provided he chose to plead that he had always been ready to assign dower. Co. Litt. 32b.
As against the alienee of the heir, likewise, damages are to be estimated from the time of the husband's death, unless the statute provides otherwise. 1 Roper, Husb. & Wife, 440; Seaton v. Jamison, 7 Watts (Pa.) 533; Hitchcock v. Harrington, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 290, 5 Am. Dec. 229. Contra, Newbold v. Ridgeway, 1 Har. (Del.) 55.
39. See 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3278; Martin v. Martin, 14 N. J. Law, 129; Rannels v. Washington University, 96 Mo. 226 9 S. W. 569; Price v. Price, 54 Hun (N Y.) 349; Munger v. Perkins, 62 Wis. 499, 22 N. W. 511.
40. 4 Kent, Comm. 70; Wood v. Morgan, 56 Ala. 397; Henderson v. Chairas, 35 Fla. 423, 17 So. 574; Anstell v. Swann, 74 Ga. 27?; Chase's Case, 1 Bland (Md.) 206, 17 Am. Dec. 2?7; Turner v. Morri , 27 Miss. 733; Shields v. Hunt, 39 N. J. Eq. 485; Johnson v. Thomas, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 377; Campbell v. Murphy, 55 N. C. 357; Keith v. Trapier, 1 Bailey Eq. (S. C.) 63; Clift v. Clift, 87 Tenn. 17, 9 S. W. 360.
41. Beavers v. Smith, 11 Ala. 32; Roan v. Holmes, 32 Fla. 295, 21 L. R. A. 180. 13 So. 339; Sellman v. Bowen, 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 50, 29 Am. Dec. 524; Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 359; Chiswell v. Morris, 14 N. J. Eq. 105. Contra, Kendall v. Honey, 5 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 282; Johnson v. Thomas, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 377.
42. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3271. See O'Gara v. Neylon, 161 Mass. 140, 36 N. E. 743; Belfast Inv. Co. v. Curry, 264 Mo. 483, 175 S. W. 201.
The fact that the husband has, for the statutory period of limitations, failed to sue to recover land of which he was once seised during coverture, but which has passed into the adverse possession of another, does not affect the right of the widow to claim dower, she not being bound by his default in this regard.45 Were this not the case, the wife might by reason of the lapse of the statutory period, lose her dower in land conveyed by the husband without her joinder, although unable, during such period, as having a mere possibility or expectancy, to assert any claim of dower.
43. That the general statutes are applicable, see Livingston v. Cochran, 33 Ark. 294; Steele v. Gellatly, 41 111. 39; Kinsolving v. Pier e, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 782; Durham v. Angier, 20 Me. 242; Long v. Kansas City Stock-Yards Co., 107 Mo. 298, 28 Am. St. Rep. 413; Conover v. Wright, 6 N. J. Eq. 613, 47 Am. Dec. 213; Care v. Keller, 77 Pa. St. 487; Lide v. Reynolds, 1 Brev. (S. C.) 76. That the general statutes are inapplicable, see Barksdale v. Garrett. 64 Ala. 280, 38 Am. Rep. 6; Miller v. Pence, 132 111. 151; Burt v. C. W. Cook Sheep Co., 10 Mont. 571; Barnard v. Edwards, 4 N. H. 107, 17 Am. Dec. 403; Simonton v. Houston, 78 N. C. 408; Jones v. Powell, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 194.
44. Barksdale v. Garrett, 64 Ala. 2S0, 38 Am. St. Rep. 6; Dan-ley v. Danley, 22 Ark. 263; Gilbert v. Reynolds, 51 111. 513; Ralls v. Hughes, 1 Dana (Ky.) 407; Steiger v. Hillen, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 121; Wilson v. Willis, 131 Md. 47, 101 Atl. 694.
45. Miller v. Pence, 132 111. 149, 23 N. E. 1030; Lucas v. Whitacre, 121 Iowa, 251, 96 N. W. 776; Williams v. Williams, 89 Ky. 381, 6 L. R. A. 637, 12 S W. 760; Durham v. Angier, 20 Me. 242; Moore v. Frost, 3 N. H. 126; Winters v. De Turk, 123 Pa. St. 359, 7 L. R. A. 658, 19 Atl. 354.
46. Rowe v. Johnson, 19 Me. 146; Atkins v. Yeomans, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 438; Tuck v. Fitts, 18 N. H. 171; Parks v. McClellan, 44 N.
J. Law, 552; Miller's Adm'r v. Woodman, 14 Ohio, 518. Compare Robinson v. Godvers, 138 N. Y. 425, 34 N. E. 209.
47. Roan v. Holmes, 32 Fla. 295, 21 L. R. A. 180, 13 So. 339; Turney v. Smith, 14 111. 242; Rowe v. Johnson, 19 Me. 146; Atkins v. Yoemans, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 438; Tuck v. Fitts, 18 N. H. 171. But her death does not have this effect if after judgment, though the case is appealed. Tibbetts v. Langley Mfg. Co., 12 S. C. 465.
48. Pollitt v. Kerr, 49 N. J. Eq. 66; Johnson v. Thomas, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 377; Steiger's Adm'r v. Hillen, 5 Gill & J.
(Md.) 121. In Paul's Ex'rs v. Paul, 36 Pa. St. 270, it was in effect held that her representatives could recover rents and profits, though she did not actually sue for dower during her life, provided she demanded it.
49. Waters v. Gooch, 6 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 586; Shirtz v. Shirtz, 5 Watts (Pa.) 255.
50. Co. Litt. 34b; 2 Scribner, Dower (2d Ed.) 105, 176; Hil-dreth v. Thompson, 16 Mass. 191.
51. See 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3275; 2 Scribner, Dowar, 141. 170; 7 Enc. PI. & Pr. 170, 185, 206.
52. 2 Scribner, Dower, 82, 582; See ante Sec. 233, note 76.
Sec. 235] Estates Arising From Marriage.

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. 
 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. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.