Case Name: NANCY LEFEVRE'S LESSEE v. MURDOCK
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1833-04
Citations: 1 Wright 205
Docket Number: 
Parties: NANCY LEFEVRE’S LESSEE v. MURDOCK.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
NANCY LEFEVRE’S LESSEE v. MURDOCK.
Deed of a married woman — void—divorce from bed and board — use of lot for alimony — right of entry. — ejectment.
The deed of a married woman is void at common law, though such deed may be good if made under a statute.
A decree of divorce from bed and board, allowing the wife the use of a city lot for alimony, vests her with a legal right to enter and use, on which she can maintain ejectment.
Ejectment for lot 35, in Cincinnati. The plaintiff made title under a decree of the Supreme Court in Hamilton county, divorcing Nancy Lefevre and her husband from bed, and board, and allowing her the use of the lot 35 for her alimony.
The defendant offered to read in evidence a deed from, Nancy Lefevre, bearing date after her marriage and before her divorce from Lefevre.
Starr, for the plaintiff,
contended that the deed of Mrs. Lefevre made during coverture, was void, and insisted that the decree of divorce vested in her the right to the possession of the lot.
Storer, contra,
contended that the decree of the court did not operate upon the land, so as to vest Mrs. Lefevre with a right of *entry; but if it did, it would be inoperative against her own [206 deed of conveyance.

Opinion:
LANE, J.
The deed of a femme covert, unless made in pursuance of some statute, is void and of no avail. The decree allowing Mrs. Lefevre the tese of the lot in dispute, is either entirely nugatory, or its effect is to secure her the possession of the lot that she may use it. Ye think the latter its ostensible and legitimate effect.
Verdict for the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was made, argued and overruled. Judgment on the verdict.
[Separation may suspend wife's disability; Benadam v. Pratt, 1 O. 403, 406.]