Case Name: Remington v. Remington
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1792-09
Citations: 1 Root 463
Docket Number: 
Parties: Remington v. Remington.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 463–464

Head Matter:
Remington v. Remington.
A lease to a man. during his life and the life of his wife, if he should marry, vests no interest in the wife.
Action of ejectment to recover possession of a certain farm described in the declaration, declaring that on the 26th of March A. D. 1771, Thomas Remington being well seized of said premises, leased the same to Daniel Remington, in the words and manner following, viz. Thomas Remington, for the consideration that my father Daniel Remington hath this day\ made and executed to me a deed of his farm on which he noiv lives, for his support and maintenance during his natural life, and the life of his wife (in case he should marry.) I do hereby remise, lease and to farm let unto bim the said Daniel, the farm on which he now lives, bounding, etc. to use, occupy and improve, according to the rules of good husbandry, for and during the term of his natural life and the life of his wife, if he should marry, etc. Said Daniel entered and possessed by force of said lease, and on the 11th of August A. D. 1774 married the plaintiff, and on the 12th of May A. D. 3 790 said Daniel died, and thereupon the plaintiff became seized by force of said lease of said premises, for the term of her natural life, and that the defendant afterwards, viz. on the 12 th of August A. D. 1790 entered and disseized her, etc.
Plea in bar ■ — • That after said marriage took place the plaintiff eloped from the said Daniel, and by the aid of an arbitration they agreed upon the terms of living separate; that at and for thirteen years before said Daniel’s death, she lived separate from him, in which time he disposed of all his right in said letten premises to the defendant, and that the defendant had purchased of the heirs of said Thomas, who were also deceased, all their reversionary right to said premises. To this plea a demurrer was given.
Judgment — That the plea in bar is sufficient.

Opinion:
The question of law which arises in this ease, is, upon the construction of the words in the lease from Thomas to Daniel, viz. I do remise, lease, etc. unto said Daniel, for and during the term of his natural life, and the life of his wife, if he should marry.
Here is no interest granted to the wife, and if the words which axe inserted in the lease, and the life of his wife if he should marry, have any operation, it would be to lengthen the term beyond his own life, in case his wife survived him; and the interest would vest in his heirs, during her life, so that she can have no right, except it be of dower by force of the statute.