Case Name: MARY A. DE ROCHE v. SALLIE R. G. MYERS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1903-02-24
Citations: 69 N.J.L. 14
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARY A. DE ROCHE v. SALLIE R. G. MYERS.
Judges: Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Van Syokel, ■Port and Pitney.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 14–15

Head Matter:
MARY A. DE ROCHE v. SALLIE R. G. MYERS.
Argued November C, 1902
Decided February 24, 1903.
.In an action of ejectment, brought by the daughter of a testator against his widow, to recover certain lands, and thereby to test the validity of the will of decedent, whereby plaintiff had been cut off, on. the ground that the will was a nullity, it appeared that the locus in quo was the mansion-house of the testator, and that he resided there, with his wife, up to the time of his death; that she continued to reside there up to the institution of this suit, and that no dower had been assigned to her. Held, that a verdict for the plaintiff could not he sustained, for, if the will was valid, the plaintiff had no right, title or interest whatever in the premises, an'd if the will was void, the decedent d-ied intestate, and1 defendant, by virtue of her right of quarantine, was entitled to the occupancy of the mansion-house so long as her dower remained unassigned Gen. Stat., p. 1270, § 2.
In ejectment. On rule to show cause.
Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Van Syokel, ■Port and Pitney.
For the plaintiff, John W. Wescoil.
For the defendant, William T. Boyle, with whom was B. O. .Moon (of the Pennsylvania bar).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gummere, Chief Justice.
The plaintiff was a daughter .and the defendant was the wife of Charles Myers, deceased, who, at the time of his death, was seized of the lands involved in this suit. The real object of the action is to test the validity of the will of the decedent. The plaintiff was cut off by that will; and, on the trial, undertook to show—first, that it had not been executed in compliance with the provisions of our statute, and second, that it was the product of undue influence. The jury, after hearing the testimony on these points, rendered a verdict for the plaintiff.
The issue submitted to the jury was whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the premises, which, at the time of the bringing of the suit, were occupied by the defendant. Their finding that she was cannot be supported upon any legal ground. The case was tried upon the theory that the right of the plaintiff depended upon whether or not the will of her father was a nullity. This was a manifest misconception of the legal situation. It appeared by the undisputed evidence in the case that the locus in quo wa£ the mansion-house of the testator; that he resided there, with his wife, up to the time of Ms death; that, after Ms death, she continued to reside there up to the time of the institution of this suit, and that no dower had been assigned to her. When those facts appeared the right of the defendant to remain undisturbed by the plaintiff in her occupancy of the premises was demonstrated. As I have already stated, this was the mansion-house of the deceased at the time of his death. If his will was valid, the -plaintiff had no right, title or interest whatever in the premises. If his will was void, and the decedent died intestate, the, defendant, by virtue of her widow's right of quarantine, was entitled to the occupancy of the mansion-house so- long as her dower remained unassigned. Gen. Stat., p. 1276, § 2.
The rule'to show cause should be made absolute.