Case Name: Frances Alexander's Administrator v. Wilson C. Selden et al., heirs of Charles Alexander, Senior
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1830-11
Citations: 4 Cranch 96
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frances Alexander’s Administrator v. Wilson C. Selden et al., heirs of Charles Alexander, Senior.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 4
Pages: 96–96

Head Matter:
Frances Alexander’s Administrator v. Wilson C. Selden et al., heirs of Charles Alexander, Senior.
If the husband does not die seized, the widow is no more entitled to damages in equity for the non-assignment of her dower, than she is at law.
Bill in equity by the administrator of the widow Frances Alexander, against the heirs at law of her husband for an account of the rents and profits of her dower, from the time of demand, until her death.
Her husband in his lifetime had conveyed the lands to his son, Charles Alexander. Mrs. Alexander died in 1823.
Mr. Heioitt, for the plaintiff,
cited Curtis v. Curtis, 2 Bro. C. C. 620, and contended that the plaintiff might recover damages in equity, even if she could not at law.
Mr. Taylor, contra'.
By the statute of Merton, the widow is not entitled to damages unless her husband died seized ; but here her husband had in his lifetime conveyed the estate to his son; so that the husband did not die seized. Co. Lit. 32 b; Dyer, 284 a; Embree v. Ellis, 2 Johns. 124, 484 ,• S/iaio v. White, 13 Johns. 179 ; Virginia Law, December 7, 1792, p. 170, § 4.
Mr. Hewitt, for the complainant,
cited Herbert v. Wren, 7 Cranch, 370; Mundy v. Mundy, 2 Ves. Jr. 122; 1 Thomas Coke, 588, note; and contended, that courts of equity are not confined to the legal right of dower, but may give the same damages from the time of demand. of dower, where the husband did not die seized, as the statute of Merton gives where the husband died seized.

Opinion:
The Court
(Thruston, J., absent,) was of opinion that damages cannot be given in equity which could not be recovered at law.