/

DEVELOPEMENT

OP THE

LAW OP DOWER IN ILLINOIS.

THESIS

PRESENTED BY R-. O; DONOGHUE

IN CONNECTION WITH HIS APPLICATION

POR THE DEGREE OP L. L. B,

UNIVERSITY OP ILLINOIS*

LAW SCHOOL.

1899

BRIEF

A u th o r it ie s C ited on the General Common Law D octr in e o f Dower.

1, Coo le y * s B lack ston e Comm, V o l, I , Chap. 8 .

2 , K en t 's Comm, V o l. 4 , Rage 37 to 16,

3 , Washburn on Real P ro p e r ty . V o l , X, Chap 7 .

4 , W illiam s on Real Prop e r ty .

5, Tiedeman on Real P ro p e rty . S e c .3 ,

Boone on Real P ro p e rty , pp . 52 to 71,

7 , Am, & Eng, E n cy c lo , o f Law, V o l. I 0 ,p . l 2 5 to 217,

I l l i n o i s S ta tu tes C ited ,

I An Act f o r the Speedy A ssignm ait o f Bower, L. I 8 ly , p . 1 2 ,Feb, 12,

2 , An Act f o r th e Speedy Assignment o f Bower and P a r t i t io n o f Real

E s ta te , R .L . 1827,p .1 8 3 ,F e b .6 , June I ,

3 An Act f o r the Speedy A ssignm ait o f D ow er,R .L .1833 ,p .2 3 6 .

4 An Act in R e la t io n to C erta in D ecrees in Chancery ana prdghS : o f :

the C ou rt,L ien f o r B ow er,L ,1859 ,p ,4 8 ,F e b ,19 .

5. An Act to Reform the P roba te System (Assignment o f Dowsr-j

p .9 2 ,F e b ,21.

6 . An Act in R e la tio n to Assignment o f Dower,L. 1865,p .<±8 , Feb. 16,

7 , An Act A u th oriz in g a W ife,w here Husband i s a L u n a tic , o r

d is t r a c t e d , to R e a lize Dower in C erta in Cases, L. I 8 6 0 , p ,4 9 ,E eb . 16.

8 . An A ct to Amend Chap, 3 4 ,R .S . 184 5 ,E n tit le d Dower,L.1 8 6 5 ,p .107

E e b . 13 ,

9 . An Act to Amend Cfcap ,7 9 ,R .S . 1845, ( S o l i c i t o r 's Rees in S u its

f o r P a r t i t io n and Assignment o f Dower) L ,1869,p .568 , A p ril * 6 .

I l l i n o i s Cases C ited ,

Adams v s . Adams,79 111 517,

A lle n v s . A lle n , 112 111 323,

Akin v s . M e rre ll,3 9 111 62,

Barth v s . L in e s ,118 111 374,

Bonner v s , P e te rso n , 44 111 253,

B a ile y v s , W est,4 l 111 290,

Brian v s . M elton, 125 111 647,

B ed ford v s . B e d fo r d ,136 111 354,

Cool v s . J a ck so n ,1 3 ,111 Ap 560,

C o ll in s v s . Woods e t . a l . 63 111 285,

Davenport v s , P a ra r ,I Scam. 314,

Gale v s . K in z ie ,8 0 111 132,

Gorden v s . D ick so n ,131 111 141,

G ilb e r t v s , R e y n o ld s ,51 111 513,

Hains v s . H e rn e tt ,l2 9 111 347,

Hingumn v s . Cochrane, 51 111 302,

Husen v s . Kusen, 145 111 6 58,

Jones v s , G ilb e r t , 135 111 27,

H-

K e lle t v s , Sheppard, 129 111 432,

L en fers Vs, H enke,73 111 405,

Leib v s , Montague, 102 111 446,

L e lo id v s , Malone, 23 ILL 43,

McGee v s , McGee,9l 111 548,

Meyar vs P f e i f f e r , 50 111 485,

McKee v s . Brown, 45 111 p30,

N ick o l v s . M il le r , 37 111 387,

N ico l v s , O gden,29 111 323,

N ico l v s , T od d ,70 111 295,

Owens v s . P ecock ,3 8 111 33,

Owens v s . R o b b in s ,19 111 554,

Rawson e t . a l . v s . Raw son,52 111 62,

Rindleman v s . R indlanan, 118 111 257,

S c r ib lin g v s , Rass, 16 111 122,

Stow v s . S t e e l , 45 111 328,

S te e l v s . M agie, 48 111 39 6 ,

Strawn v s , Straw n,46 111 412,

Schnelby v s , S ch n elby ,26 111 176,

Strawn v s , Strawn, 50 111 256,

Stooky v s , Stooky e t . a l . 89 111 40,

S te e l v s . LaPrambois,6 8 111 456,

Walker v s , D oan,108 111 236,

I

PART I .

SOURCE AND COMMON LAW DOCTRINE ON DOWER.

Among the Romans, th is term meant that w hich th e w ife brought

the husband at m arriage , and to which h is r ig h t to enjoyment la s te d

on ly during m arriage , whether i t c o n s is te d o f lands or p e r s o n a lty ,

and at h is death i t again re v e r te d to the w ife . A ccord ing to the

C iv i l Law th is term corresp on ded to some e x ten t w ith dower at

common law .

In the e a r ly p a rt o f the Saxon c o n s t it u t io n , dower ou t o f

lands seems to have been unknown, and the w ife is d ir e c te d to be

supported w holly out o f the p erson a l e s ta te . L ateron the widow

became e n t i t l e d to a c o n d it io n a l e s ta te in one h a l f o f the lan d s ,

upon co n d it io n that she remain ch aste and unm arried. By some

in tro d u c tio n o f dower has been a s c r ib e d to the Normans, as a

branch o f t h e ir l o c a l ten u res , but th ere does n o t seem to be any

good reason f o r i t , because i t was no t a part o f the sim ple law

o f feu d s , but was f i r s t in trod u ced in to that law by Emperor Fred­

e r ic I I . I t may be that dower i s the r e l i c o f an o ld Danish custom,

f o r some h is t o r ia n s o f th a t country say that i t was in trod u ced

in to uenmark, by Swein the fa th e r o f Canute the G reat, out o f

g r a t itu d e to the Danish la d ie s , who s o ld a l l t h e ir je w e ls to ran-

some him when taken p r is o n e r by the V andals. But w hatever th e d i -

fe re n t reasons a s c r ib e d by d i f f e r e n t co u n tr ie s f o r i t s in tro d u c tio n

may b e , the reason which the common law g iv e s is a v e ry gooa one,

namely the su sta in en ce o f th e w ife , and the nuture and edu cation

o f the younger c h i ld r e n . The w ife , i s the p ro p e r o b je c t o f the kind

ness and care o f the husband, and he i s bound by the law o f God

and man to p ro v id e f o r h er during h er l i f e and a f t e r h is death

the moral o b l ig a t io n should not end. But he ought to p ro v id e f o r

h er during h er own l i f e a f t e r he d ie s . From the e a r l ie s t p e r io d o

the e x is te n ce o f the common law a g re a t d ea l o f fa v o r was g iven

th is p r o v is io n fo r the support o f a w ife su rv iv in g h er husband.

Reason f o r th is was, th a t , by the o ld law, i f th ere had been no

such p r o v is io n , f o r the w ife , in case she su rv iv ed h er husband,

she would have been l e f t w ithout any means o f su p p ort. The r ig h t

o f the widow to dower d id n ot o r ig in a te from any l e g i s l a t i v e o r

o th er law, but as B lackston e says, from that a n cien t c o l l e c t i o n

o f u n w ritten maxims and custom s, c a l le d the common law, however

compounded, o r from w hatever fou n ta in s d er iv e d , which had sub­

s is t e d im m em orially. Along with h er r ig h t to dower the widow i s

e n t i t le d to r e s id e in her husband 's d w ellin g house f o r f o r t y days

a f t e r h is death and during th is time to r e c e iv e reason ab le support

th is i s c a l le d qu arantine . This r ig h t extends on ly to the d w ell­

ing house and n ot to any o th er part o f the p r a n is e s . The widow

is a ls o e n t i t le d during the f o r t y days to what i s termed the par.

a p h ern a lia . O r ig in a l ly dower was d iv id ed in to f iv e p a rts namely*.

(T) Dower by the common l a w , (2) Dower ad ostium e c c l e c i a e , ( b)

T

Dower ex assensu p a t r i s , ( 4 ) Dower by custom, and. (5) Dower d e la

p lu s b e l l e . But the o n ly kind g e n e r a lly adopted in the U nited

S ta tes was that known as dower at common law . This kina o f dower

is f u l l y d e scr ib e d to be , where a man i s s e iz e d o f an e s ta te oi

in h e r ita n ce and d ie s in the l i f e t im e o f h is w ife , in which case

she is at common law e n t i t l e d to dower f o r h er l i f e , o f the th ird

p a rt o f a l l the lands o f which h er husband was s e iz e d , at any

time during the co v e r tu re , and o f which any is su e she might have

had, might by p o s s i b i l i ty have been h e i r . From th is d e f in i t i o n o f

dower i t w il l be seen th at the w i f e 's enjoym ent o f h er dower can­

n o t b eg in u n t i l the death o f h er husband, and even then not u n t i l

the p a rt o f the e s ta te to which she i s e n t i t l e d i s a l lo t t e d to

h e r . During h er h usband 's l i f e t im e h er r ig h t i s sa id to be in ch oate

upon h is death the r ig h t becomes cunnsummate. A fte r h er dower has

been s e t apart she becomes a tenant f o r l i f e o f th e p o r t io n so set

apart f o r h e r . The in ch oa te r ig h t o f the w ife to dower i s as much

e n t i t le d to p r o t e c t io n as the vested r ig h ts o f the w id ow 's , i t is

an in t e r e s t and r ig h t o f which she cannot be d iv e s te d except by

h er consent o r by her dying b e fo re h er husband, and she m ay,during

the l i f e t im e o f her husband m aintain an e q u ita b le a c t io n f o r the

p r o t e c t io n o f her in ch oa te r ig h t o f dower from the fra u d u len t

a c ts o f h er husband. The r ig h t o f the widow to dower is to be

determ ined by the law o f the p la c e wherethe s u b je c t m a tte r 0 the

cla im i s lo c a te d .

T

We w i l l now co n s id e r the r e q u is it e s to p e r fe c t the w idow 's

r ig h t to dow er. These are ( I ) m arriage , (2 ) s e iz e n o f the husband

at some time during the e x is te n ce o f the c o v e r tu re , (o ) death o f

the husband. The r ig h t o f dower attaches upon the land im m ediately

upon m arriage o r as soon a f t e r as the husband becomes s ie ze d but

the m arriage must be a le g a l on e , f o r a v o id , th ere s h a l l be no

dow er. I f v o id a b le on ly and not d is s o lv e d in the l i f e o f the hus­

band, the widow w il l be e n t i t le d to dower. In o rd er to e n t i t l e the

widow to dower at comrron law th ere must have been a se ize n in the

husband during c o v e r tu re . A t i t l e to dower cannot a r is e except in

r e sp e ct to lands o r tenem ents, o f which the husband was s e ize d and

that s 'e izen must be during cov e rtu re and th is ru le i s based upon

sound reason in g f o r i t would be absurd that a t i t l e sommencing

w ith the m arriage co n tra ct should r e la te back to a l l p rop erty o f

which the husband had at any tim e, at any p e r io d o f h is l i f e t im e ,

been s e iz e d , and h is se ize n o f which was p r e v io u s ly determ ined .

During the l i f e o f the husband the r ig h t to dower is in ch oa te .

Upon h is death th is r ig h t becomes consummated. I t i s the n atu ra l

death aid n ot the c i v i l death that i s h ere r e fe r re d to . Where a p

p erson goes abroad and has n o t been heard from f o r seven years he

w il l be presumed to be dead, and ru le a p p lie s to person s away from

th e ir u su a l p la ce s o f r e s o r t and o f wnom no accou n t can be g iven ,

and a l s o , under some c ircu m sta n ces , i f the p a rty whose death i s

assumed is aged, in fittn o r i l l , when la s t heard from , o r had been

exposed to great danger, as by shipwreck, o r i f he had gone go sea

in a v e s s le that had h ever been heard from .

But th ere are some c la s se s o f cases in which even when these

r e q u is it e s a re fou n d , the widow would n ot be e n t i t l e d to dower.

For in s ta n ce , f i r s t , i f d iv o rce d a v in cu lo m atrim onii during cover­

tu re , secon d , vo lu n ta ry elopem ent and a d u lte ry , th ird , i f the hus­

band has been a t ta in te d o f tre a so n , fo u r th , i f the husband i s an

a l ie n ,

A d iv o r ce a v in cu lo m atrim oni makes the m arriage v o id ab in ­

i t i o and bars the w i f e ’ s r ig h t to dower, and th e r e fo r e th e person

c la im in g dower must have been the w ife o f the husbana at the time

o f h is d eath . A d iv o r c e a mense e t thoro at common law does not

a l t e r the r e la t io n o f the p a r t ie s and i s n o t th e re fo re a bar o f

dow er, A d iv o r c e , d is s o lv in g the m arriage c o n tra c t on the ground

o f the a d u lte ry o f the husband does not d ep riv e the w ife o f her

r ig h t o f dower in h is e s ta te . But i f a w ife commits a d u lte ry and

e lop es she f o r f e i t s her dower, u n less the husband i s w il l in g ly

r e c o n c ile d to h er and perm its her to coh a b it with him a g a in . I f

the w ife be f o r c i b l y taken away from h er husband, and con tin u e

w ith Hie man a ga in st h er w i l l , her r ig h t to dower w ill not be

f o r f e i t e d , but a lthough taken away by f o r c e , i f she afterw ards re­

main w ith the a d u lte re r she w i l l be barred o f her dow er. Whether

£he w ife lea v e her husband w ith o r w ithout h is con sen t, and l iv e in

a d u lte ry , she w i l l n e v e rth e le ss f o r f e i t her dower, i f there be no

subsequent r e c o n c i l i a t io n betw een them. So a d u lte ry is a bar to

dower although committed a f t e r the husband and w ife have sep era ted ,j

by mutual co n se n t. I f the w ife lea v es h er husband 's house in con­

sequence o f h is c r u e lty and commits a d u lte ry w ithout r e c o n c i l ia t io n

she i s barred o f h e r r ig h t to dow er. The husband w i l l not be ob­

l ig e d to take h is w ife back again a fte r , she has e lop ed from him

and committed a d u lte ry . I f during the elopem ent, the husband purch­

ase lands and a l ie n them, o r s e l l those o f w hich h e was s e ize d at

th e time o f h is w i f e 's lea v in g him, and he a fterw ard s becomes re­

c o n c ile d to h e r , she w il l be e n t i t le d to dower o f a l l such la n d s .

By the common, law i f a man was a t ta in te d o f ^ reason o r fe lo n y h is

widow was thereby barred o f h er dower. But by an e a r ly s ta tu te ,

an e x ce p t io n was made in fa v o r o f a l ie n s , m arried to Englishmen,

by l ic e n s e from the K ing, And by a l a t e r E n glish s ta tu te a l l sub-

| j e c t s o r person s n a tu ra liz e d are e n t i t le d to the r ir h t s o f n atu ra l

born s u b je c t s .

In c o n s id e r in g th is s u b je c t i t is n ecessary to keep in mind

the di s t in c t io n between the c la s s o f p roperty upon which th is

r ig h t may a tta ch , and the amount o f in te re s t req u ired to e x is t

th e r e in , as a r e q u is i t e . Land i s , as a gen era l r u le , s u b je c t to

dower, but dowev* does not a ttach upon every in te re s t in la n d . Thus,

an e s ta te f o r l i f e i s an in te r e s t in land and i s c a l le d re a l p ro ­

p e r ty , but accord in g to the ru le s o f common law i t i s not su b je c t

to dower. The widow i s e n t i t le d to dower not on ly in the la n d ,b u t

a lso in a l l in co rp o re a l hereditam ents that savor o f r e a l ty . And

7

the w idow 's dower r ig h ts extend to e q u it ie s o f redem ption . The

widow i s a ls o e n t i t le d to dower in base o r q u a liffied fe e and es­

ta te s t a i l . Having con s id ered the k inds o f p ro p e r ty s u b je c t to

dower, we w i l l now co n s id e r the amount o f in te re s t the husband

must have in o rd e r to e n t i t l e the w ife to dower.

The e s ta te must be one the is su e o f the w ife might in h e ir

i t . I t i s n ot n ecessary to the attachm ent o f dower that is su e

capab le o f lh h e i r i t in g shou ld a c tu a l ly be born , but the p o s s i b i l i t y

is enough. But the w ife m ust, how ever, at the death o f h er hus­

band be o f such an age as to have had a p o s s i b i l i t y o f bearing

issu e and a t common law th is age was n ine years . But on the o th er

hand the law does n ot s e t any bounds to th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f having

issu e at the most advanced age . And i t has even been held that

i f a man marry a woman one hundred years o ld she sh a ll have h er

dower, though by nature she can not have is s u e . The e s ta te o f Che

husband muse co n fe r a . r ig h t to the immediate f r e e h o ld , and dower

is n ot a llow ed in e s ta te s o f rem ainder o r r e v e rs io n expectan t

upon an e s ta te o f fr e e h o ld and hence i f the e s ta te o f the husband

be s u b je c t to an ou tstan d in g fre e h o ld e s ta te which remains undet­

ermined during the m arriage , no ~ igh t o f dower a tta ch e s f o r the

se ize n o f the fre e h o ld i s in the tenant f o r l i f e , and the rematnde]

is not an e s ta te o f in h e lr ita n c e tn p o s s e s s io n . Where there i s a

vested fre e h o ld e s ta te in a th ird p a r ty between the f r e e h o ld and

the in h e it ita n c e o f the husband, during the continuance o f that

S’e s ta te , dower w il l not a t ta c h . I t i s not enough th a t the h usband

is s e iz e d o f an e s ta te o f fre e h o ld in p o s s e s s io n and an e s ta te

o f in h e r i t a n c e in rem ainder or r e v e r s io n , the in h e r i t a n c e as

w ell as the fr e e h o ld must be in p o s s e s s io n . In other words i t must

be the immediate i n h e r i t a n c e and not an in h e r i t a n c e expectan t

upon an e s ta te o f fr e e h o ld in any o th e r person between the f r e e ­

h o ld a n d in h e ir ita n ce o f husband. An e s ta te f o r years o r o th er

c h a t te l in te r e s t goin g between the f r e e h o ld and in h e r i t a n c e o f the

husband w il l n ot preven t dower from a tta ch in g , s u b je c t to the tern

o f years o r o th er in terv en in g ch a t te l in te r e s t and her dower does

not take e f f e c t u n t i l th is in t e r e s t is determ ined .

To l e t in the t i t l e o f dow er,how ever, the p a r t ic u la r e s ta te

must determ ine in the l i f e t im e o f the husband and i f the w ife shoul

su rv iv e the husband and afterw ards during her l i f e t im e the p a r t ic u

la r e s ta te shou ld determ ine she would n ot th ereby a cq u ire any r ig h t

to dower, because th ere was no se izen during the covertu re o f such

an e s ta te -a s her t i t l e could a ttach upon. A widow is not e n t i t le d

to dower o f a mere an n u ity granted to the husband and h is h e ir s nor

is she dowable ,o f lands assign ed to another woman in dower. A

widow is not e n t i t le d to dower o f a tru st e s ta te a t common law

and she never was allow ed dower o f a u se , A woman, d iv o r ce a v in cu ­

lo m atrim oni, on the ground o f the a d u ltery o f the husband, i s not

e n t i t l e d to dower in the lands o f which he became s e iz e d a f t e r ,

and o f which he was not se ize d b e fo re d iv o r c e . As the w ife i s on ly

— y —

e n t i t le d to dower in such e s ta te s a s . the husband was s e ize d at

some tim e during co v e r tu re , i t fo l lo w s that any e f fe c t u a l a l ie n a t ­

ion b e fo re m arriage p la ce s the e s ta te beyond the reach o f the

w i f e 's r ig h t to dower. But where a con v ey a n ce ' i s made on the

same day o f the m arriage , a lthough b e fo re i t i s so lom im zed i t is

n ev e rth e le ss h e ld th at the w i f e 's r ig h t to dower a tta ch e s . In consi

d erin g the e f f e c t upon the r ig h t o f dower o f conveyances made befo

f o r e m arriage , i t is sQnetimes n ecessa ry to d is t in g u is h between

a l ie n a t io n which are v o id a b le o n ly , and th ose which are v o id , f o r

although the a l ie n a t io n was v o id a b le i f i t was n ot avoided during

the cov ertu re /there w il l be no r ig h t o f dower. But i f a lie n a t io n

is w h olly v o id the s e ize n never having been tra n s fe rre d to the

a lien ee ,rem a in in the husband and became su b je c t to the w i f e 's

r ig h t to dow er. Now a f t e r the w i f e 's r ig h t to dower has once

a ttach ed i t i s not in the power o f the husband a lone to d e fe a t i t ,

by any a c t in the n atu re o f an a l ie n a t io n . ®t i s a r ig h t which a t ­

taches by O peration o f law, which although i t may never become

consummated, f o r the w ife may d ie b e fo re the husband,yet i t is

a r ig h t which a tta ch es upon the land the moment th ere i s m arriage

and s e iz e n . T h erefore the a l ie n a t io n o f the husband whether volun­

ta ry o r in v o lu n ta ry , w il l c o n fe r no t i t l e on the a lie n e e , as against

! the w ife in re sp e c t o f her dower, but she w il l be e n t i t le d to re­

cov er a ga in st such a lie n e e in the same manner as she would have

recov ered a g a in st the h e ir o f the husband,had the husband d ied s e iz e d .

TV

PART I I ,

ILLINOIS STATUTES ON THE LAW OP DOWER.

Dower in I l l i n o i s i s a common la w ,n o t a s ta tu to ry r ig h t . I t

has been en forced in I l l i n o i s as a part o f the common law o f the

S ta te . Prom the beginning o f i t ' s e x is te n ce as a s ta te , ex cep tin g

wherein i t has been m od ified o r extended by s ta tu te , beyond the

l im it s o f the common law . In ord er to in v e s t ig a te th is s u b je c t ,

i t i s n ecessa ry to in q u ire in to the nature and o r ig in o f the estate;

o f dower and to do this the a i l o f the common law must be invoked

as the r ig h t o f d wer i s g iv e n by that law, and in th is s ta te r e ­

mains the same and i s unim paired by l e g i s l a t i v e in n ov a tion .

Having d iscu ssed in Part I , the common law d o c tr in e o f dower

and the p r in c ip le s th e re in in v o lv e d , I w il l p roceed to d iscu ss the

anomolous form s which the law o f dower has assumed in I l l i n o i s in

a d d it io n to o r in l im it a t io n o f the common law th eory .

The e a r l i e s t a ct in th is s ta te in r e la t io n to dower i s the

a ct o f Peb. 1 2 ,1 8 ly , e n t i t le d An Act f o r the Speedy Assignment o f

Dower. The f i r s t s e c t io n p ro v id e s that when the h e ir o r o th e r p e r ­

son having the n ext immediate e s ta te o f in h e ir ita n c e , does n ot

ass ig n to the widow w ith in one month a f t e r the death o f her husband

h er dower in t e r e s t , then th e widow is e n t i t le d to recover her dower

by the w rit o f dow er, a ga in st the tenant in p o s s e s s io n , o r against

such p erson as claim ed the r ig h t o f in h e r ita n ce .

— -— nS ec . 2 o f th is a ct p ro v id e s th t a f te r ' the widow has recovered

judgment f o r the re co v e ry o f her dow er, she s h a ll a ls o b e 'awarded

reason ab le damages fwom the time o f demand and r e fu s a l to a ss ig n

to h e r , h er dower, and a w rit o f s e ize n s h a l l is su e to the s h e r i f f

or co ron er o f the county whose duty i t i s to see that her dower be

p ro p e r ly a ss ign ed to her by th ree d is in te r e s te d fr e e h o ld e r s o f

the county and the y must take an oath b e fo re a ju s t i c e o f the peace

to the e f f e c t that they w il l a ss ig n to th e widow h er dower w ithout

showing any p a r t i a l i t y , a lso that they w il l a ss ig n i t as convenient

ly as p o s s i b le .

S ec . 3 p ro v id e s that i f th ere can be no d iv is io n o f the

e s ta te by meets and bounds, she sh a ll r e c e iv e as her dower one-

th ird o f the ren ts and p r o f i t s and i f she allow waste to be commit-

ed a f t e r h er dower has been assigned she sh a ll f o r f e i t that p a r t

on which the waste has been committed to the one who has the im­

m ediate e s ta te o f f r e e h o ld . And i t sh a ll be th e duty o f th e widow

to keep the pare assigned to her as dower in as good r e p a ir as i t

was iihen ass ign ed to h e r . And when the waste is caused by n e g l i ­

gen ce , o r s u ffe re d to be done by her the damages are to be recover­

ed by an a c t io n o f w aste, The second a ct in I l l i n o i s r e la t in g to

th is su b je c t was an a c t f o r the speedy assigrm ent o f dower and

p a r t i t i o n o f r e a l e s ta te . I t was approved I 'eb . ” 6 ,1827 and in fo r c e

June 1 s t ,1 8 2 7 , S ection I o f th is a c t corresponds with Sec I o f the

p re v io u s a c t . S ec. II p ro v id e s that a widow cla im ing dower may f i l e

7 X “ ' ‘ “h er p e t i t i o n in the C ir c u it Court o f the county s ta t in g h er cla im ,

and the lands in which she cla im s dow er, s t a t in g the names o f the

p a r t ie s aga in st whom the p e t i t i o n is f i l e d and pray in g th a t dower

be assigned to h e r , And the c le r k sh a ll is su e a summons to the

p a r t ie s named in the p e t i t i o n and a ga in st whom i t i s f i l e d to ap­

pear in the n ext term o f cou rt and answer the com pla in t. This sum­

mons is to be served by the s h e r i f f the same as o th e r w r it s , Xf

any o f the p a r t ie s are unknown o r do not r e s id e in the county i t

i s the duty o f the c le r k to a d v e r t is e in tRe n ea rest newspaper in

the s ta te f o r four su c c e s s iv e weeks,no t i fy in g them th at a p e t i t i o n

has been f i l e d re q u ir in g them to appear at the next tern o f c o u rt ,

and show cause why dower should not be a ss ign ed . S ec, I I I p rov id es

that where the w idow 's cla im to dower may be co n te s te d , the Par­

t ie s w ishing to c o n te s t must en ter th e ir appearance an when they

do so the cou rt s h a l l p rocede to t r y the cause.

S e c . l4 p ro v id e s that when any o f the p a r t ie s ,d e fe n d a n ts o r min

o r s , and w ithout guardian , the cou rt s h a ll appoint a guardian ad

lita m f o r such m inor.

Sec.V p ro v id e s that when the Court, adjudges that the widow

is e n t i t l e d to dower i t sh a ll to -g e jih er with a d e s c r ip t io n o f the

land a l lo t t e d to h e r , be entered o f r e c o rd . This s e c t io n as regards

the appointm ent o f com m issioners and th e ir d u t ie s , corresp on ds

w ith S e c ,I I o f the p rev iou s a c t . By this s e c t io n the widow i s en­

t i t l e d to the homestead o f the husband. A fte r the com m issioners

have a l lo t t e d to the widow h er dower, they must make a retu rn to

the cou rt showing the p a rt a l l o t t e d and i f t ie cou rt approves i t ,

he takes the p a rt a l lo t t e d f o r h er n a tu ra l l i f e . S ec. VI o f th is

a ct corresp on ds w ith S ec. I l l o f the p rev iou s a c t . S ec. VII p ro ­

v id es that where the land to mhi ch the widow has c la im l i e s in d i f ­

fe re n t co u n tie s she may p roceed in a c i r c u i t cou rt o f the county

where the lands l i e and when the cou rt has approved the r e p o r t , as­

s ign in g dower i t sh a ll cause the widow to have p o s s e s s io n by a writ

f o r th a t pu rpose and she sh a ll be e n t i t le d to damages from the tintf

o f her demand and the r e fu s a l to ass ign her dower and these dam­

ages may be a ssessed by the cou rt o r i f n ecessary by a ju r y .

S ec . V III p ro v id e s th at the widow may cla im the p osse ss io n

o f the d w e llin g house f r e e from ren t o r m o le s ta tio n u n t i l her dower

is assign ed to h e r .

S ec . IX p ro v id e s that i f the lands cannot be d iv id ed w ithout

in ju r y a ju r y may be empanneled f o r the purpose o f e s tim a tin g the

y e a r ly va lue o f the w idow 's dower th ere in and the court sh a ll g iv e

judgment that there be p a id to the widow in l ie u o f dower on a

day named th sum so assessed as the y ea r ly va lue o f h e r dower, and

she sh a ll r e c e iv e the same sum on the same day in every year there­

a f t e r ,u n t i l h er death . And a ju r y may a lso assess the damages

which may have occu rred down to the t ime o f rendering the v e r d ic t .

S ec. 10 p ro v id e s that the h e ir s o r any person in te re s te d in

the land m aym petition the cou rt to have the widow* s fl0wer assign ed

; w

to h e r , and the proceadu re i s the same as in the same as in other

c a s e s .

^ e c , II r e la te s to the e f f e c t o f d iv o r c e on dower and p ro ­

v id es that i f a woman be d iv o rce d from her husband f o r the fa u lt

o f the husband she sh a ll not l o s e h er r ig h t to the dower, except

where the m arriage was v o id from the b eg in n in g . But i f d iv o r ce be

f o r h e r f a u l t she f o r f e i t s h er r ig h t to dower and where d iv o rce

i s f o r the f a u l t o f the husband he s h a l l lo s e , h i s r ig h t to cu rtesy

S ec . 12 p ro v id e s th at i f the w ife o f h e r own wi i l , lea v e h er

husband and eommit a d u lte ry she s h a ll f o r f e i t h er dower u n less the

husband be v o lu n ta r i ly r e c o n c ile d to h er and a llow h e r to dw ell

with him a g a in . S ec. 12 p ro v id e s th at when any p erson , by l a s t

w ill o r testam ent, d e v ise h is o r h er re a l esta te to two o r more

p erson s , such person s may p e t i t i o n the c u r t and have a d iv is io n

o f the lands made agreea b le to the meaning o f the w il l and commiss

ion ers are appointed f o r th is pu rp ose . And a f t e r they make the

a r t it i o n and make t h e ir r e p o rt to the cou rt and i t is approved by

the c o u r t , i t s h a ll be entered o f r e co rd and s h a l l be c o n c lu s iv e

to a l l con cern ed .

S ec . 14 p ro v id e s that where the rea l esta te o f any p erson

dying in t e s ta te sh a ll descend to two o r more ch ild re n and the

same be n ot d iv id e d and they are d es irou s o f having the same d i­

v id ed the c i r c u i t upon a p p lic a t io n may o rd er a d iv is io n o f such

land a greea b le to the p a r t ie s in te r e s te d , 'i’h is p a r t i t i on is a lso

u

done by com m issioners, and t h e ir report i/ihen, app ro ved by the cou rt

s h a l l be c o n c lu s iv e o f a l l p e r t ie s con cern ed .

S ec , 15 p ro v id e s that a l l the d e v is e e s ,h e ir s , o r owners o f

lands, tenem ents, o r h ered itam en ts , as a fo r e s a id , o r guardians o f

such as are under age, not a pp ly in g f o r such d iv i s io n , s h a l l have

n o t ic e o f the a p p lic a t io n f o r such d iv is io n s to be p u b lish ed by

summons duly served o r by advertisem ait to be p u b lish ed f o r fbu r

s u c c e s s iv e weeks, in the n ea rest nesapaper, to the p rem ises , p r in t ­

ed in th is s t a t e .

S ec. T6 p ro v id e s th at when the lands a re n o t capab le o f d i ­

v is io n th ey are to be s o ld and money p a id to the owner, as the

Court s h a ll d i r e c t .

By Sec , 17 the a c t o f Feb, 12 1819, e n t i t le d An Act f o r the

Speedy Assignment o f Dower and a l s o An Act f o r the P a r t i t i <n o f

lan d , appro ved -peb .2 0 ,1 8 1 9 , are re p e a le d .

S ec , 18 p rov id es f o r the com pensation o f the commis s i one r .

The re v ise d law o f 1835 r e la t in g to th is su b je c t i s e x a c t ly

the same as the ac t o f 1827 e n t i t le d An Act f o r the Speedy a ss ig n ­

ment o f dower and P a r t i t io n o f Real JSstate.

The a c t o f 184 5 e n t i t le d “Dower” approved March 3rd, 1845,

p ro v id e s in S e c ,I that a widow s h a l l r e c e iv e as dower one th ird o f

a l l the lands o f which h e r husband was s e iz e d o f an e s ta te o f in ­

h e r i t a n c e , a t any time during m a rr ia g e ,u s le ss she re lin q u ish e d

h er r ig h t in le g a l form ,

nA lsfo that e q u ita b le e s ta te s and a l l rea l e s ta te s c o n tra cte d f o r

by the husband in h is l i f e tim e and the t i t l e to which may be

com pleted a f t e r h is death are s u b je c t to dower.

By S ec . IT the widow i s e n t i t l e d to dower o f the e s ta te o f

h er a l ie n husband the same as i f h er husband had been a n a t iv e

born c i t i z e n o f the U nited S ta te s .

S e c .I l l ' p ro v id e s th a t when a person s e iz e d o f an in h e r ita n ce

in lan d , execu tes a m ortgage b e fo re m arriage , h is widow is not

d eprived o f h er dower a g a in st an.y p erson excep t the m ortgagee and

those c la im in g under him.

S ec. 14 p ro v id e s that when the husband purchased lands during

cov ertu re the widow sh a ll n o t be e n t i t l e d to dower ou t o f such

lands as a ga in st the m ortgagee o r th ose c la im in g under him although

she d id not j o in in the m ortgage. When the m ortgagee o r those cla im

ing under him sh a ll a f t e r the death o f the husband cause the land

m ortgaged to be s o ld , the widow i s e n t i t le d to the income o f on e-

th ird p a rt o f the land f o r l i f e .

Sec.V I p ro v id e s that a widow i s not e n t i t le d to dower in

lands m ortgaged to h er husband, u n less he g e ts the a b so lu te t i t l e

during m arriag e .

S e c ,V II When an e s ta te in lands i s conveyed to a person and

h is intended w ife , o r to such intended w ife a lo n e , o r to some one

in t r u s t f o r them, or w ife a lo n e , fo r the purpose o f c r e a t in g a

jo in t u r e and by h er consent taken i n . l i u e o f dower, th is bars h er

77r ig h t to dower.

S ec . VITI p ro v id e s that the w ife sh a ll be con clu ded to have

assented to the jo in t u r e i f she be o f f u l l age, by becoming a p a rty

to the conveyance and i f she i s an in fa n t by h er jo in in g with h er

fa th e r o r guardian in the conveyan ce.

S ec , IX p ro v id e s th at i f the jo in t u r e i s w ithout her consent

she sh a ll be e n t i t l e d to make an e le c t io n whether to a ccep t the

jo in t u r e o r take h er dower but she is n ot e n t i t le d to b o th .

S ec . 10 p ro v id e s that where land is d ev ised to the widow she

has an e le c t i o n whether to take under such d e v ise o r to renounce

i t and take h er dower anci h er share in the p erson a l e s ta te .

S e c .I I p ro v id e s th at the widow sh a ll be deemed to have taken

such d e v ise o r jo in t u r e u n less she renounce such d e v ise o r j o i n t ­

u re w ith in one year a f te r th e p rob a te o f the w i l l , and she sh a ll

d e l iv e r a w ritten re n u n c ia tio n to the p rob a te cou rt o f the p rop er

county and th is w ritten ren u n c ia tion is f i l e d in the o f f i c e o f the

p rob a te j u s t i c e o f the peace and bars any cla im which she may

a fterw ards se t up . A fte r th is i s done she is e n t i t le d to h er dower

in the lands o r share in the p erson a l e s ta te o f her husband.

S e c .12 p ro v id e s th at where a woman is d iv o r c e d from h er hus­

band o|i account o f h is m iscon d u ct, except when the m arriage i s

v o id from the beg in n in g , she does not l o s e h er dower nor jo in t u r e .

But i f the d iv o r ce is f o r her f a u lt she lo s e s h er dower and i f the

d iv o r c e is f o r the fa u lt o f the husband he lo s e s h is r ig h t to cur-

I*t e s y .

S e c .13 p ro v id e s that the w i f e 's r ig h t to dower and jo in tu r e

is barred i f she v o lu n t a r i ly lea v e h er husband and commit a d u lte ry

u n less the husband a fterw ards becomes r e c o n c ile d to h er and a llow

h er to l i v e w ith him a g a in .

S ec . 14 p ro v id e s th a t no conveyance executed by the husband,

w ithout h is w i f e 's jo in in g w ith him ,and no judgment aga in st him

and no n e g lig e n c e , d e fa u lt , o r crim e o f the husband sh a ll bar her

r ig h t to dower o r jo in t u r e o r preven t her from re co v e r in g i t i f

she i s o th erw ise e n t i t le d to i t .

S ec . 15 p ro v id e s that where the w ife su rv iv es th e husband

and th ere are no c h ild re n nor descendents o f c h ild r e n the widow

may i f she w ish , take in l i e u o f -h e r dowe'r one h a lf o f a l l the

re a l e s ta te rem aining a f t e r the payment o f cla im s aga in st the

e s ta te , but th is s e c t io n a lso p ro v id e s th at i f the dower has

a lread y been assigned to h er she must make such new e le c t i o n one

month a f t e r the payment o f such e la im s, that i s a f t e r she has

been n o t i f i e d .

S e c .16 p ro v id e s that i f the husband exchange h is lands f o r

o th e r lands the widow cannot have dower in both but must make an

e le c t i o n , and i f w ith in one year no p roceed in g s are corrmenced

fo r the re co v e ry and assignm ent o f dower in the lands g iven in

exchange, she is deemed to have e le c te d to take dower in the lancjs

taken in exchange.

S ec. 17 p ro v id e s th at the parson , having zh

nin h e r ita n ce in which e s ta te the widow i s e n t i t le d to dower, must

ass ig n wuch dower as soon as p o s s i b le , a f t e r the death o " such

husband.

S e c ,18 p ro v id e s th at i f th e h e ir o r o th e r person does not as

s ig n the widow h er dower w ith in one month a f t e r the death o f the

husband, she may sue f o r and recov er same in the manner d escr ib e d

a ga ih st anyone c la im in g r ig h t o f p o s s e s s io n in the e s ta te .

S e c ,19 p ro v id e s th at the widow c la im in g dower may . f i le h er

p e t i t i o n in ch an cery in the c i r c u i t cou rt o f the county a ga in st

the p a r t ie s s ta t in g t h e ir names i f known, s ta t in g a lso the nature

o f h er c la im , and the lands in which she c la im s dower and p ray in g t

that her c la im be a llow ed . The c le r k then is su e s a summons to the

p a r t ie s to appear, and answer the com p la in t. This summons i s as

o th e r w rits o f p ro ce ss served by the s h e r i f f . I f the p a r t ie s do not

r e s id e in the county the c le r k s h a ll cause an advertisem en t to be

p u b lish e d n o t i fy in g them o f the f i l i n g o f th e p e t i t i o n a g a in s t

them and re q u ire them to appear at the next term o f the c i r c u i t

c o u r t , and show why dower should n ot be a ss ig n ed . And t h is p u b lic a ­

t io n is deemed s u f f i c i e n t n o t ic e and anyone in te re s te d may appear

and con test t|ie w idow 's t ig h t to dower.

S e c .20 p ro v id e s th at i f the names o f any o f the p a r t ie s in te r ­

es ted are known, they may be proceeded against under the nane o f

person s unknown and in th is case an a f f id a v it must be f i l e d by the'

person w ishing to make any unknown person a p a r ty to the e f f e c t

t hat the names o f such p e rsons are

a c c o r d in g ly . And n o t ic e g iv e n by p u b lic a t io n as req u ired i s

s u f f i c ie n t to a u th or ize the cou rt to hear the s u i t and a l l ju dg­

ments e t c . sh a ll be as binding as i f the p a r t ie s had been proceed ,

ed a g a in st in t h e ir r o p e r names. I t i s a lso p rov id ed by th is

s e c t io n th at i f any o f the p a r t ie s r e s id e o u t o f the s ta te they

srhall w ithin one year a f t e r n o t i c e in w rit in g o r w ith in three years

a f t e r such d ecree i f n o t ic e has n ot been g iv en , appear in cou rt and

p a t i t io n to be heard in regard to such d ecree and they sh a ll pay

the c o s t s which the cou rt deems reason ab le in that b e h a lf . The

person p e t i t io n in g may appear and answer, and such p roceed in g s

had as i f the defendant had appeared a t the p ro p e r tim e and no

d ecree had been made. I f the d ecree is n o t s e t a s id e , in the mannej* /

a fo r e s a id , a f t e r three years from the making i t i s deemed c o n f in e d

aga in st such non r e s id e n t defendant o r any p erson c la im in g unaer

him and at the end o f th ree years the cou rt may make such fa r th e r

o r d e r in the prem ises as sh a ll be req u ired and s h a l l be j u s t .

S ec. 21 p ro v id e s that the answer to such p e t i t i o n s h a ll be

sworn to and where the w idow 's cla im to dower may be co n te s te d the

p a r t ie s c o n te s t in g must en ter th e ir appearance ana then th e cou rt

w i l l p roceed to try the cause as the circum stances re q u ire . When

any o f the defendan ts are m inors and w ithout guardians the cou rt

s h a l l appoint guardians f o r such m in ors.

S e c .17 p rov id es that p e t i t i o n s f o r the recovery o f dower sh a n j

be heard and determ ined upon p e t i t i o n answer, e x h ib i t s , and o th e r

XT-testim on y , w ithout the n e c e s s ity o f form al p le a d in g s .

S e c .24 p ro v id e s that where the cou rt adjudges that the widow

sh a ll r e co v e r h er dower, i t t o -g e th e r w ith the d e s c r ip t io n o f the

lands sh a ll be entered o f record and the cou rt s h a ll app oin t thre i

d is in te r e s t e d com m issioners, and they sh a ll take an oath b e fo re

a ju s t i c e o f the peace that they w ill im p a r t ia lly a l l o t to the

widow h er dow er.

Sec .25 p ro v id e s that the com m issioners s h a ll a l l o t to the

widow h er dower by meets and bounds, a ccord in g to q u a lity and quan­

t i t y but the widow s h a ll have the homestead i f she so d e s ir e , and

they s h a ll make return to sa id cou rt under t h e ir hands and s e a ls .

And i f the return i s approved by the c o u r t , she takes an e s ta te fo r

h er n a tu ra l l i f e , o f the p a rt a l lo t t e d to h e r . I f the e s ta te has i

been a l l o t t e d to the widow by v ir tu e o f s e c t io n 15 o f th is ch ap ter

she sh a ll take such an e s ta te in fe e s im p le f o r e v e r .

S ec .26 p ro v id e s that i f the widow claim s dower in lands l y i nf

in d i i f e r e n t cou n ties she may proceed in the c ir c u i t cou rt o f the

county where the lands l i e and i f the lands l i e in d i f f e r e n t count­

i e s , in the county where the g r e a te s t p a r t o f the land l i e s . But i f

the g re a te s t part does n o t l i e in any one county then in any county

in which any o f the lands l i e . When the report a ss ig n in g dower

has been approved the cou rt causes the widow to have p o s s e s s io n .

And the widow is also e n t i t le d to damages from the time o f her

demand and re fu s a l to a ss ig n h er h er dower, 'l’hese damages mgj

IKe ith e r be assessed by the co u rt o r a ju ry and i f n ecessa ry a ju r y

j may be app oin ted fo r th at p u rp ose .

S e c ,27 p ro v id e s th at in a l l ca ses the widow is e n t i t l e d to the

d w e llin g house in which h er husband m ost u s u a lly dw elt b e fo re h is

death , to g e th e r with. the outhouses and p la n ta t io n b e lon g in g to

i t , f r e e from rent and m o le s ta t io n , u n t i l h er dower i s a ss ig n e d .

S ec , 28 p ro v id e s that i f the com m issioners rep ort that the

land or o th er e s ta te i s not capab le o f d iv i s i o n , wi thou t ' in ju ry ,

a ju r y may be errpanneled f o r the purpose o f f in d in g out the y e a r ly

va lue o f the widow ’ s dawer th e re in , and a f t e r they have done t h is

the cou rt s h a l l render judgment that th e re be pa id to the widow in

l ie u o f dower, on a day named th e re in , the sum assessed as the

y e a r ly va lu e o f h er dower, and the same sum on the same dayin

every year th e r e a fte r during h er n atu ra l l i f e . And the ju ry may at

the same tim e assess the damagesm which may have o ccu rre d down to

the time o f rendering the v e r d i c t .

S e c ,29 p ro v id e s th at the com m issioners ap p o in ted to a ss ig n

dower may make re p o rts to the cou rt during the same term at which

they were a pp oin ted ; and the cou rt may at such term make a l l such

ord ers upon such return as may be n ecessary to a f in a l d isp en sa tion

o f the ca se .

S e c .30 p ro v id e s that no woman endowed o f any land tenements,

o r hereditam ents sh a ll w antonly commit or a llow any waste thereon*

i f she does she f o r f e i t s that p a r t o f the e s ta te upon which such

waste is made, to the p erson having the im nediate e s ta te o f in ­

h e r ita n c e , in rem ainder o r r e v e r s io n . And in case o f n e g lig e n ce

o r in a d v erten t waste done o r s u ffe r e d to be done by h er , damages

assessed are to be recov ered by an a c t io n o f w aste.

S ec. 31 p ro v id e s that the h e i r s , or th e ir guardians i f they

are under a ge , o r any person in te re s te d may a lso p e t i t i o n the cour

to have the w idow 's dower a ss ig n e d .

S e c ,32 p ro v id e s that the com m issioners app oin ted to a ss ig n

the widow h er dower s h a ll each r e c e iv e one d o l la r a day each to

be taxed as o th e r c o s t s , .

S e c ,33 p ro v id e s that a t the death o f the widow such land o r

e s ta te descends in accordan ce with the w ill o f tfce husband and i f

he d id not have a w i l l , i t w i l l descend a ccord in g to the la w ,p ro ­

v id in g f o r the d is t r ib u t io n o f in t e s ta te e s ta te s .

S ec , 34 p ro v id e s that no widow who, as e x e c u tr ix o r a dm in istr

t r i x , s e l l s and con veys, f o r the payment o f d e b ts , r e a l e s ta te o f I

h er husband by o rd er o f the cou rt and which she i 3 by law e n t i t le d

to dower, sh a ll b e deemed to r e lin q u is h h er r ig h t to dower oy re a*,

son o f such conveyan ce, u n less h er re lin qu ish m en t sh a ll be s p e c i ­

f i e d in such dea l o r conveyan ce . The next a c t in th is s ta te i s

an act in r e la t io n to c e r ta in d ecrees in chancery and o rd ers o f

c o u r t . I t was in f o r c e I 'eb , 18 ,1859 , and approved the same

d a te .

I t p rov id ed that in a l l ca ses where an ord er o f a cou rt o f

re cord is made a l ie n on lands o f a part o f such o rd e r o r decree

J7 Tin any co u r ts in th is s ta te , to secu re the payment o f the y e a r ly

v a lu e o f the w idow 's dower, and sa le s o f land may become n ecessa ry

to s a t i s f y any such sum or sums o f money and c o s t s , as theym ay

become due, such sa le s sh a ll n o t ex tin g u ish o r r e le a s e the H en

upon such land fo r the money that may become due a f t e r p roceed in gs

are in s t it u t e d to s e l l lands under such o r d e r o r d e c re e , and execu

t io n s may is su e to e n fo r ce such o rd er o r decrees as pa ynaits may

become due a ccord in g to the p r a c t ic e in co u rts o f law o r e q u ity .

The act to reform the p ro b a te system was in f o r c e F e b .21,1859

and approved th e same d a te . This a ct g iv e s the county c o u r ts o f

th is s t a t e con cu rren t j u r i s d i c t i o n w ith the c ir c u i t cou rt in the

assignm ent o f d< w er. Where p e t i t i o n is p resen ted f o r the s a le o f

r e a l e s ta te to pay debts o f deceased and i t appears that:, th ere

is a dower in t e r e s t in the lands sought to be s o ld , i t s h a ll be

la w fu l f o r the cou rt under the p e t i t i o n o f the person e n t i t l e d to

dower, to app oint com m issioners to a ss ig n dower to person e n t i t l e d .

The same as p rov id ed by the c i r c u i t court o f th is s t a t e . This

act a lso p ro v id e s that the county c o u rts sh a ll p rov id e th a n se lves

with a book and keep i t in the form re q u ire d , and f a i l u r e to do

th is sh a ll be deemed contempt o f c o u r t .

I t p ro v id e s f o r the fe e s and when the county cou rt w il l trans

a ct p rob a te b u s in e ss .

The act o f peb . 16 1865 e n t i t le d An A ct in R e la t io n to A ssign­

ment o f dower p rov id ed that where com m issioners are d i r e c t e d to

a l l o t dower in s e v e ra l t r a c ts o f la n d , i t is not n ecessa ry f o r than

to a l l o t dower in each t r a c t , but they may a l l o t such dow er in the

whole o f such lands in such manner as they deem b est but su b je c t

to the approval o f the c o u r t .

The a ct o f ^ e b . 16 1865 e n t i t l e d an act to a u th or ize a w ife

whose husband i s a lu n a t ic o r d is t r a c te d to r e a l iz e dower in

c e r ta in ca se s .

I t p ro v id e s that when the husband is d is a b le d the w ife may

j o in in deed and re lin q u is h dower and homestead o f husband 's estatjj?

and she may a ls o j o i n and convey h er own re a l e s ta te the same as

i f the husband were under no d i s a b i l i t y , and in case o f such s a le

the p roceed s o f the w ife 's land are to be p a id to h e r . And in case

o f any such conveyance o r r e le a s e by the w ife o f h er r i ’ h t to dower

o r .hom estead, the p roceed s o f the s a le o f any such in te r e s t o f

the w ife may w ith the consent o r o rd er o f the cou rt be p a id to

the w ife -a s s o le p r o p e r ty . The in t e r e s t i f in dower to be determin|

ed by the annuity t a b le s ; based upon th e l i f e o f the w ife o r the

p roceed s may be so in v ested under o rd e r o f the cou rt as to secu re

to th e w ife the same r ig h t and b e n e f it in th e same, and the income

th e r e o f as she would have i f th e same had n o t been s o ld and h er

husband had died .A nd any agreement made betw een the w ife and the

guardian o r co n se rv a to r f o r d isp o s in g o r in v e s t in g such proceeds

be approved by the co u rt and any o rd e r o r d ecree made in r e la t ic n

th ere to s h a l l be b i nding on a l l i n t e r e s te d in the lands s o ld o r ih

J l

p roceed s o f such sa le and may be en forced by an a c t io n at law

or e q u ity and the w ife has th ese rem edied in h e r own name a lon e .

This a ct i s a p p lic a b le to guardians o f i d i o t s .

The a ct o f peb.I3mX865 e n t i t l e d An a ct to amend Chap 5 4 ,R ev is

ed S ta tu te s , e n t i t le d dower, p ro v id e s how dower i s to be assigned

when there are se v e ra l t r a c ts o f land in w hich the widow may be

e n t i t l e d to dower The lands not being incumbered by a deed o f

tru s t o r m ortgage the com m issioners may assign h e r h e r dower in a

bod y .

The act o f A p ril 16,1869 e n t i t le d an a c t to amend Chapter 7{

r e v ise d S ta tu tes o f 1845, p ro v id e s f o r s o l i c i t o r ' s fe e s in s u its |

f o r p a r t i t i o n and assignment o f dow er.

The la s t a c t in th is s ta te r e la t in g to th is s u b je c t and the

a ct now in f o r c e i s the a ct approved March 4 th , 1874, and in f o r c e

Ju ly 1 ,1874 , e n t i t le d an a c t to r e v is e the law in r e la t i o n to dower

As th is a ct corresp on ds in many s e c t io n s with the act o f 184:5 and .

having a lread y s ta te d that a c t , I w il l sim p ly s ta te the m o d ifica ­

t io n s and ex ten s ion s made.

Sec I i s the same as gee I . o f the dower act o f 1845, with

the p r o v is io n a b o lis h in g cu rte sy added, thereby g iv in g the husband!

dower the same as the w ife .

S ec. 2 to 9 corresp on ds w ith the same s e c t io n s o f the act o f

1845 an they are extended so as to apply to the dow er o f the hus­

band the same as to the w ife ,

J7Sec 10 p ro v id e s that any d e v ise o f land o r in te r e s t in la n d

o r any p r o v is io n made by the wilL o f deceased husband or w ife f o r

a su rv iv in g w ife or husband sh a ll u n less o th e rw ise expressed in th

w il l bar dower in the lands o f the deceased u n less he o r she s h a ll

e l e c t to renounce the b e n e f i t o f the d e v is e o r o th e r p r o v is io n , in

which case he o r she s h a ll be e n t i t l e d to dower in the lands and

to one th ir d o f the p e rs o n a lty a f t e r the payment o f a ll d eb ts .

S ec. I I p ro v id e s that th e e le c t i o n to take jo in t u r e d e v ise o r

o th er p r o v is io n must be made w ith in one ye >r a f te r p ro b a te o f w i l l

S ec. 12 is the 15th s e c t io n o f the a c t o f 1845 extended to

dower o f husband. I t has the f o l lo w in g changes. I t r e q u ire s the

descendant to d ie t e s t a t e , lea v in g no c h i ld o r .descendents o f a

c h i ld , in which case *he su rv iv in g husband o r w ife may; jjLphe,-qft

she e l e c t , take In l ie u o f dower whether the r ig h t i;o: :i?u6h- ddwar: .

has accrued by ren u n cia tion o r o th erw ise , and o f any share o f : iho

p erson a l e s ta te which he or she may be e n t i t le d to taka with such

dower a b s o lu te ly and in h is o r h er own r ig h t one h a l f o f a l l the

r e a l o r p erson a l es ta te which remains a f t e r the payment o f d eb ts ,

and cla im s a g a in st the e s ta te o f such deceased husband o r w ife .

This s e c t io n a ls o p ro v id e s that the e le c t i o n be made within two

months a f t e r the payment o f d e b ts , whether dower has been a ss ign ed

or n o t .

S ec. Ib i s the sane as S e c .I I w ith the p r o v is io n extending i t

to su rv iv in g husband added*

S ec . 14 i s the same as s c e t io n 12 except as adapted to

s u b s t itu t io n o f h usband 's dower f o r cu r te s y .

S ec. 15 i s the same as se c t ic n 13 except that i t i s made to

app ly to husband e q u a lly w ith w ife .

S ec , 16 corresp on ds w ith S ec. 14, except as extended to p ro j

t e c t h u sba n d 's dower or jo in t u r e in w i f e 's lands as w ell as h er

dower o r jo in t u r e in h i s .

S ec. 17 and 18 corresp on d with sec 16 and 17 with the exten ­

s ion o f dower to husband added.

S ec. 19 i s the same as qec 18 w ith remedy by p e t i t i o n added.

I t s a y s 'th a t such s u rv iv o r may sue f o r and re co v e r dower by p e t i ­

t io n in chancery a ga in st such h e ir o r o th e r person or an,y tenant

in p o s s e s s io n or any o th e r person cla im in g r ig h t o r p o s s e s s io n in

sa id e s t a t e .

S ec . 20 is in l i e u , o f f i r s t p a rt o f s e c t io n 19 which re q u ir

p e t i t i o i in c i r c u i t c o u r t . This s e c t io n says p e t i t i c n may be f i lei

in any cou rt o f re co rd o f com petent ju r is d i c t io n in the county wh<

the e s ta te o r some p a rt o f i t i s s i tu a te d .

s e c . 21 This s e c t io n p r o v id e s th a t in fa n ts may p e t i t i o n by

guardian o r next f r ie d d o r by co n s e rv a to r . When a person under

guard ian sh ip is defendan t he may appear by guargian o r co n serv a tor

or the cou rt may ap p o in t a guardian ad lita m f o r such person and

compel the p erson appointed to a c t .

S ec . 22 is the 19 s e c t io n re w r itte n ana p ro v id e s that the

p e t i t i o n se t fo r th the nature o f the cla im and s p e c i fy 'die prem iss

in which dower i s c la im ed , a lso s e t t in g f o r th xhe in te r e s t o f a l l

p a r t ie s in te re s te d so fa r as known to the p e t i t i o n e r , and p ra y in g

f o r the assignm ent o f dow er.

S ec. 2o p ro v id e s that occu pan ts and a l l in te re s te d p a r t ie s not

p e t i t i o n e r s sh a ll be made defendan ts to such p e t i t i o n .

S ec. 24 p ro v id e s that when the mijjior o r the amounts o f their-

in te r e s t s i s unknown to the p e t i t i o n e r o r t h e ir in t e r e s t s un cer­

ta in o r t h e ir ownership depends upon an ex ecu tory d e v ise o r the

rem ainder s h a l l be con tin g en t o r , that the p a r t ie s cannot be named

the same mus.t be s ta te d in the p e t i t i o n .

S ec. 25 This se e t io n is p a rt o f s e c . 20 o f the a c t o f I8<± 5 re

w r it te n . I t p ro v id e s that when the p e rso n in te r e s te d in the prem ie

es a re unknown they are to be made p a r t ie s in the s t y le o f unknown

owners o r as the unknown h e i r s o f any p erson who may have been

in te re s te d in the same.

S ec . '26 i s in l ie u o f S ec . 20 o f a ct o f 1845. £t p ro v id e s

th at defendan ts be sunmoned the same as in s u i t s in chancery .

S ec. 27 is a ls o part o f S ec. 20 re w r it te n and p ro v id e s that

the unknown p a r t ie s may be n o t i f i e d the same as in cases in chan­

ce ry by ad v ertisem en t.

S ec. 28 p ro v id e s that the p a r t ie s a re to be n o t i f i e d the sane

as in cases in chancery , when i t appear by a f f i d a v i t f i l e d as re ­

qu ired in chancery that the defendant i s ou t o f the s ta te o r can-

no t be f ound a f t er due inquiry:,—cu?-^.nnce aVa—hims-eif_irr t±ris~

2 v = = ==-so that pB ocess cannot be served on him and the a f f i a n t sh a ll

s ta te the re s id e n ce o f the d e fen dan t, o r i f i t cannot be found ou t

a f t e r d i l ig e n t in q u iry , he may be n o t i f i e d the sane as in such

cases in ch an cery .

S ec, 29 Where the defendan ts are n o n -re s id e n ts they may be

served the same as defendants in chancery .

S ec. 30 This s e c t io n p ro v id e s that when any o f the p a r t ie s

defendant sh a ll n o t be summoned, served w ith a copy o f the p e t i t i o n

or does n ot r e c e iv e the n o t ic e requ ired to be sen t him by m ail, any

o f the P a r t ie s may appear and answer the p e t i t i o n the same as

o th er cases in ch an cery .

S ec. 31 p ro v id e s th at p e t i t i o n e r may re q u ire defendan ts to ans

wer p e t i t i o n on oath and th is oath sh a ll have the same e f f e c t as

an answer under oath in ch an cery .

g ee . 32 p ro v id e s that the p a r ty in te re s te d may during the

pendency o f any such s u it o r p rod eed in gs appear and answer the pet

i t i o n and a s s e r t t h e ir r ig h ts by way o f in te rp le a d e r and the cou rt

sh a ll d e c id e upon the p a r t ie s appearing the same as though th e y

had been made p a r t ie s in the f i r s t p la c e .

S ec . 33 This s e c t io n corresp on ds w ith s e c t io n 2o o f the a c t o f

1845 w ith the p r o v is io n that the p e t i t i o n s h a l l a lso be heard upon

the r e p l ic a t io n . I t a ls o says that the cou rt may d ir e c t the is su e

or is su e s to be t r ie d by a ju r y as in oth er case ’s in e q u ity .

S ec. 34 is the same as s e c . 24 o f the act o f 1845, extended

to dower o f husband.

— J lS ec, 35 This s e c t io n i s the f i r s t p a rt o f c e c . 25 o f the

act o f 1845.

S ec , 36 th is s e c t io n corresp on ds with the f i r s t p a r t o f se c -

t ion on e o f the Act o f -?eb. 13 ,1865 .

S ec , 37 p ro v id e s as in s e c t io n 25 o f a ct o f y845 f o r the

husband o r w ife tak ing hom estead and i f he o r she does take home­

stead i t sh a ll n ot e f f e c t h is o r h er e s ta te o f hom estead. But i f ta

the dower i s a l lo t t e d out o fth e land such a llo tm en t i f a cce p te d ,

sh a ll be a w aiver and r e le a s e o f th e e s ta te o f homestead o f the

p e rs o rw e n tit l ed to dower and h is o r h er c h ild r e n u n less i t sh a ll

be o th e rw is e 'o rd e re d by the c o u r t .

S ec. 38 is th e same as the f i r s t pa r t o f t e 25th s e c t io n

o f the a ct o f 1845. I t p ro v id e s th at the rep ort o f the com m issioner

sh a ll be in w rit in g and s ign ed by at le a s t two o f them, showing

whatnthey have done, i f they have made a d iv i s io n an th ey s h a ll

d e s c r ib e the p a rt a l lo t t e d by meets and bounds and i f th is r e p o r t

i s approved b y the cou rt i t sh a ll g iv e to the p e rso n to whom the

e s ta te i s a l l o t t e d an e s ta te f o r h is o r h e r n atura l l i f e . And the

cou rt by a w rit d ir e c t e d to the s h e r i f f sh a ll cause the p erson

to have p o s s e s s io n .

S ec. 39 corresp on ds in* qiost p a r t ic u la r s w ith s e c t io n 28 o f

the a c t o f T845. I t p ro v id e s that when the e s ta te c o n s is t s o f a

m il l o r o th e r tenement which cannot oe d iv id e d w ithout in ju ry and

■tansge to the . » l e , the d o »e r may he a ssign ed o f th e re n ts , is su es

and p r o f i t s th e r e o f to be had and r e ce iv e d by the p erson e n t i t l e d

th ere to as tenant in common with the owners o f che e s ta te , o r a

ju r y may be empannelled f o r the purpose o f in q u ir in g o f the y e a r ly

va lue o f th e dower th e r e in and they sh a ll a ss e s s the same a cop rd -

in g ly and the co u rt sh a ll d ecree that th ere be pa id to such person #

in l i e u o f dower on a day named, the sum a ssessed as the yearly-

v a lu e o f such dower and the same amount on the same day o f every

year fo l lo w in g u n t i l h is or h e r n a tu ra l death and the same may be;

made a l i e n on any re a l e s ta te o f the p a r ty a ga in st whom such d eer

ee is rendered o r cause the same to be o th e rw ise secu red .

S ec. 40 p ro v id e s th a t whenever such l ie n i s made o n any re a l

e s ta te and i t becomes n ecessa ry to s e l l the rea l e s ta te to s a t i s f y

any such in s ta llm e n t , the p rop erty sh a ll be so ld su b je c t to the

l ie n o f the in s ta llm e n ts , n o t then due, u n less the c curt sh a ll

at the time d i r e c t o th e rw ise . And subsequent sa le s may from time

to time be made to e n fo r ce such l ie n s as the in s ta llm e n ts ma y be­

come due u n t i l a l l the in s ta llm e n ts a re p a id .

S ec. 41 This s e c t io n is the same as the l a s t part o f s e c . ^6

o f the a c t o f T845 r e la t in g to the re co v e ry o f damages from the

time o f h is o r h e r demand and re fu s a l to assign dower. The damages

may be a ssessed by the cou rt o r by a ju r y impaneled fo r the p u r-

pos e.

S ec. 42 The com m issioners are at a l l tim es s u b je c t to the

d ir e c t io n o f the C' u rt and any o f them may be removed and o th e rs

fated.

33S ec. 43 corresp on ds with s e c t io n 31 o f the a c t o f 1845.

^ e c . 44 p ro v id e s that when a p p lic a t io n i s made to the c ounty

cou rt to s e l l the rea l e s ta te o f the deceased fo r the purpose o f

pay in g debts o r f o r the s a le o f r e a l e s ta te o f any ward as autho ri

zed by law and i t appears th a t th e re is a dower o r homastead

in te r e s t in the lan d , the cou rt m y in the same p ro ce e d in g , on p e ­

t i t i o n o f the p erson e n t i t le d to dower o r homestead o r upon the pe

t i t i o n o f the e x e cu to r ,a d m in is tra to r ,g u a rd ia n o r co n s e rv a to r ,ca u s e

the dower or homestead to be a ss ig n ed .

tjec. 45 . This s e c t io n corresp on d s with sec t ion 30 o f tine

act o f 134 5 w ith the p r o v is io n (for gen era l l i a b i l i t y s u b s t i tu te d

f o r l i a b i l i t y f o r w aste. I t i s a ls o changed so as to a pp ly to

husband endowed.

S ec. 46 . This s e c t io n takes th e p la ce o f the 34 se c t ic n o f

the a c t o f t 8 4 5 . I t p ro v id e s that no p erson shall be deemed to

have r e lin q u is h e d any r ig h t to dower, who s e l l s and conveys lands

by ord er o f the cou rt f o r payment o f d eb ts , u n less h is o r h er r e l in

quishment is s p e c i f i e d in the deed o r c onveyance.

PART I I I .

DEVELOP EMENT 0? THE LAW OP DOWER IN ILLINOIS.

The e a r l i e s t case coming b e fo re the Supreme Court o f the

u n ited S ta te s , in v o lv in g th is s u b je c t , was the case o f S isk v s .

Smith, d ec id ed by the Court in the yo r 1844, In th is case the

Court in a len g th y o p in io n d is cu ss the ad op tion o f the common law

th eory in I l l i n o i s , And they say that as a p art o f the common law

i t has always been a p a r t o f the law o f th is s t a t e ,e x c e p t as i t

has been extended by s ta tu te , beyond the l im it s o f th e common law .

The husband and w ife are by the f i r s t s e c t io n o f the Act o f

1874, e n t i t le d An Act to R ev ise the law in r e la t io n to Dower in

I l l i n o i s , p la ce d upon an e q u a lit y in t h e ir r ig h ts to each o th ers

p ro p e r ty , excep t as to the w idow 's award, the e s ta te o f cu rtesy

be in g a b o lis h e d #by th is a c t . N eith er can by w ill d ep r iv e the other

o f h is or h er r ig h t to dower in the r e a l e s ta te and one th ird o f sL

a l l the p erson a l e s ta te , a f t e r the payment o f debts and co s ts o f

admini s t r a t io n .

And by the 10th s e c t io n o f the act o f 1874 in r e la t io n

to dow er, where no p r o v is io n i s made in the w il l o f a descendan t,

lea v in g d escen dan ts, f o r h is o r her w ife o r husband. The e s ta te as

to such s u rv iv o r i s in t e s ta te , and he or she takes one th ird o f

the p erson a l p rop erty a f t e r the payment o f d eb ts , and dower in the

land a ccord in g to the p r o v is io n o f the s t a t u t e . The r ig h t o f such

husband or w ife to one th ird o f the person a l e s ta te rem aining res ts

on a b a s is as s o l id as the r ig h t to dower in ia n d . The case o f In

re T a y lo r 's W i l l , 55 111 252, and Rawson e t . a l . v s . Raw son,52 111

62, e s ta b l is h th is p r i n c ip l e .

The I2th e jection o f the a c t o f 1874, in r e la t io n to dower

p r o v id e s , th at i f the husband or w ife d ie t e s t a t e le a v in g no chiltt

dren o r descendants o f a c h i ld , he o r she i s e n t i t le d to renounce

under the w i l l , and take as dower one h a l f o f the re a l and p erson a l

e s t a t e ,a b s o lu t e ly , a f t e r the payment o f d e b ts . And by the r u le s o f

d escen t in th is s ta te , i f the husband o r w ife d ie in te s ta te ,w ith o u t

is s u e , he o r she takes one h a l f o f the r e a l e s ta te and a l l the

p e rso n a l e s ta te a b s o lu te ly a f t e r the payment o f a l l ju s t d eb ts .

The d e f in i t i o n o f dower at common law has n ot been changed by

ou r s ta tu te and i s the same as g iv en by Blacks t o n e ,V o l .2 ,1 2 9 , and

K ent’ s Comm. Vol J5 5.

The in c id o n ts o f dower in th is s ta te a re the sane as at

common la w ,n a m ely ,th ere must have been a la w fu l m arri ag e, s e ize n o f

the husband at some time during the m a rria g e ,* and death o f the

husband.

In th is s ta te dower is barred by the fa u lt o r m isconduct o f

the husband o r w ife ,w h ere the m arriage was v o id ab i n i t i o ; and by

the a ccep tan ce o f o th er p r o v is io n s f o r h er by the w ill o f the hus

band; by an a n t i -n u p t ia l c o n tr a c t ; and by jo in t u r e .

In Rendleman v s . Rendlem an,118 1 1 1 257,

o p in io n ,r e fe r r in g to the I4ch S e ctio nthe Court sa y in th e ir

the Dower A ct, that they

regard i t as c o n c lu s iv e as regards vthe p a r t ie s . I t i s as f o l lo w s :

" I f any husband o r w ife i s d iv o r ce d f o r the m isconduct o r fa u l t

o f the o th e r , ex cep t where the m arriage was v o id from the beg in n irg

he o r she sh a ll n o t th ereby lo s e the dower nor the b e n e f it o f any

such jo in t u r e , but i f the d iv o r ce was fo r h is o r h er own f a u l t o r

m iscon d u ct, such dower o r jo in t u r e and any e s ta te granted by the

laws o f th is s t a t e , in the r e a l o r p erson a l e s ta te o f the o th e r , sh

sh a ll be f o r f e i t e d .

In C o ll in s v s . Woods e t . a l . , 6b 111 285, the Court h e ld that

a bequ est with p r o v is io n s made e x p re s s ly in l ie u o f dower, w i l l

bar her dower i f a c ce p te d , w ith a p rop er und erstand ing o f her

p o s i t io n .

In Goraen v s , D ic k is o n ,I3 I 111 141, the Court sa y that the

s ta tu te p ro v id e s th at where a w ife leaves her husband and commits

a d u lte ry she i s barred o f h er r ig h t o f dow er, but she is not

barred by h er a d u lte ry com mitted a f t e r she has been w ro n g fu lly

d e se r te d by h er husband.

In Barth v s . L in e s , 118 111 374, wherein th ere was an anti-nup

t i a l agreement en tered in to by the p a r t ie s o f mature years , and at

the tim e u n d erstood what they were d o in g , they each re le a se d and

waived t h e ir r ig h t o f dower in the land and e s ta te o f the o th e r ,

and each should r e ta in th e ir sep era te p ro p e r ty , whi ch they then

had o r which they would a fterw ards a cq u ire , f r e e from any cla im s

grow ing ou t o f th e m a rr ia g e . In th is case the Court h e ld that th is

agreement amounted to and operated as a bar to the w i f e 's cla im o f

dower in the lan d s o f the husband^/resting upon a co n s id e ra t io n o f

h is r e le a s e o f h i s le g a l r ig h ts in her sep era te e s t a t e .

In McGee v s . McGee,91 111 548, the Court say th at any reason

a b le p r o v is io n , secured out o f e i th e r r e a l ty o r p e rs o n a lty , which

an a d u lt ,b e fo r e m arriage , agrees to a ccep t in l ie u o f dower may be

regarded in equi ty , though not a s ta tu to r y j o in t u r e , as in the

nature o f a jo in t u r e , and op era tes as a bar to dower. This a p p lie s

where, in the con tem pla tion o f m a rr ia g e , p a r t ie s agree that each

sh a ll r e ta in and p o sse ss h is own p ro p e rty fo r e v e r , f r e e from the

r ig h t o f th e o th e r , and fo r e v e r renounce a l l c la im s in law and

eq u ity by way o f dower o r cu r te s y . Where under the law the hus­

band, but f o r t h is agreement would succeed to the a b so lu te owner­

ship o f the p e rso n a l p ro p e rty o f the w ife , and would be e n t i t le d to

cu rtesy in h e r r e a l e s ta te , i t cannot be sa id the husband p a r ts

w ith noth in g which the w ife can a ccep t in l i e u o f dower.

By the second s e c t io n o f the a c t o f T874 in r e la t io n to dower

the r ig h t o f dower is extended to husband o r w ife o f an a l ie n . In

th is s ta te th e r ig h t o f dower a tta ch es to a l l lands o f which the

husband o r w ife was s e ize d o f an e s ta te o f in h e ir ita n c e at any

time during the m arriag e , u n less re lin q u is h e d in l e g a l form . This

was h e ld in s c r ib l in g v s . R oss, 16 111 122, and in D avenport v s .

F a rr a r ,I Scam.314,

By the f i r s t s e c t io n o f the a c t o f t 874 in r e la t io n to dower

e q u ita b le e s ta te s are made s u b je c t to dow er,w hich i s an e x ten s ion

o f the common law . This s ta tu te making e q u ita b le e s ta te s su b je c t

to d o w e r ,c le a r ly r e fe r s to e q u ita b le e s ta te s o f in h e r ita n ce o n ly .

In c o n s id e r in g the s u b je c t o f dower in I l l i n o i s i t i s im port­

ant to keep in view th at p ro p e rty upon which th at r ig h t may a tta ch ,

and the amount o f in t e r e s t which may s u b s is t th e r e in as a re q u ite

to i t s in c e p t io n .

There are c la s se s o f p ro p e r ty which are not su b je c t to dower

because they a re s t r i c t l y p erson a l in th e ir n a tu re , and as regards

to th ese i t makes no d i f f e r e n c e what the extent o f th e in te r e s t

o r the n a tu re o f the t i t l e may be.

P roba b ly the b est mode o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and the one le a s t

l i a b l e to lea d ".o co n fu s io n and most l ik e ly o g iv e a c l e r idea o f

the k ind o f p ro p e rty upon which dower a tta ch es in I l l i n o i s , i s to

d iv id e the cases in to two c la s s e s . F i r s t , those cases which show

the kind o f p rop erty upon which dower a tta ch es and s e co n d ly , those

ca ses which show the kind o f p ro p e rty upon which th is r ig h t o f

dower does n ot a tta ch .

The ca ses on th ese two c la s se s r e s p e c t iv e ly , w il 1 be c it e d

in o r d e r . F i r s t cases showing p ro p e rty upon which dower a tta ch

In A tkin v s . M e rre ll ,3 9 111 62, the Oourt say that they regard

the d o c tr in e as s e t t le d , th at an e q u ita b le e s ta te o f in h e r ita n ce in

r e a l e s t a t e , i s s u b je c t to dower, and i f the husband during mar-

ra ig e i s s e iz e d o f an e q u ita b le e s ta te in f e e , which would on h is

death descend to h is c h i ld r e n , i t answers the requirem en ts o f the

s ta tu te * g iv in g an e q u ita b le e s ta te o f in h e r ita n ce ,w h ich becomes at

once su b je c t to the dower o f the w ife .

JT ~This p r in c ip le th a td o w e r a tta ch es to e q u ita b le e s ta te s , i s a l ­

so supported by the cases o f Stour v s . S t e e l , 45 111328, and S te e l

v s , M agie,48 111 396,

In L en fers v s , H enke,73 111 405, the q u estion in v o lv e d was

whether the widow’ s r ig h t o f dower a ttach es to m in es. On th is sub

je c t ,M r . J u s t ic e S c o t t , d e l iv e r in g the o p in io n o f the c o u r t , says,

that the g en era l r u le is th at where mines have been opened and,

worked during the l i f e time o f the husband, a w ife i s e n t i t le d to

dower, but n ot in mines n ot opened , and i t makes no d i f f e r e n c e i f

the mines have been tem p ora rily abandoned, i t i s o n ly n ecessa ry thfe

that they were opened in the l i f e time o f the husband.

The lea d in g case upon th is s u b je c t i s Stoughton v s . Leigh

in w hich i t was h e ld that the widow was dow able o f a l l her husbands

mines o f lead and s t r a ta o r lea d ore and co a l in the lands o f other

person s which had in f a c t been opened b e fo re h is death and in which

he had an e s ta te o f in h e ir i t a n c e , and that h er r ig h t to be endowed

o f them had no dependence upon th e subsequent contin uance or d i s ­

con tin u an ce o f working them, e i th e r by the husband in h is l i f e t im e

o r th ose c la im in g under him s in ce h is death .

Dower i s n ot due o f mines unopened at the death o f the husband

But i f once opened i t i s n o t n ecessary that the husband should have

worked them down to the time o f h is death . Where the deceased i s

e n t i t l e d to a conveyance the r ig h t to dower a tta ch e s . In Owen vs .

R o b b in s ,19 111 554, i t was sa id that under the r e v ise d code o f 1833

7f0the r ig h t o f dower d id n o t a tta ch to a mere c o n tra c t o f p u rch ase ,

which was n o t so fa r executed as to enable the p u rch a ser ,w h ile he

h e ld i t to e n fo r ce a s p e c i f i c perform an ce o f the agreem ent. That

u n t i l a c o n tr a c t f o r the purpose o f lands was execu ted to that

e x te n t , the vendee d id not h o ld such e q u ita b le t i t l e as gave the

w ife the r ig h t to d a t a dower i the p rem ises . But under that

law i f the husband d ied h o ld in g such a c o n tr a c t , and the payment

o f the pu rch ase money was com pleted f o r the b e n e f it o f the h e ir s

a f t r e h is death then she was e n t i t l e d to dower in th e prem ises , but

she was n ot e n t i t le d to dower i f the husband a ssign ed o r t r a n s f e r s

the co n tra ct b e fo r e r e c e iv in g the conveyan ce.

In N ico l v s . O gden,29 111 323, the cou rt h e ld th at a w idow 's

r ig h t o f dower a ttach ed to an execu ted tru s t e s ta te in la n d , but

^•ould n ot on an ex ecu tory t r u s t .

This case f u l l y re co g n ize d the r u le which c o n t r o lle d in Ow­

e n 's case .that the husband must h o ld such an execu ted e q u ita b le

e s ta te as to e n t i t l e him to be in v e s te d w ith the le g a l t i t l e . To

v e s t the w ife w ith the r ig h t o f dower in the prem ises the cases

o f Stow v . S t e e l , 25 111 328, and Strawn v s . Strawn, 26 111 4 l2 ,

and Ta y lo r v s . Kern, 68 111 339, i l l u s t r a t e th is seme p r in c ip le .

In th is s ta te dower a tta ch es to w ild and unimpnoved la n d . In

Schnelby v s . Schnelby 26 I I I 176, the q u estion in v o lv e d was whether

w ild and unimproved land was under ou r s ta tu te su b je c t to dower.

The f i r s t s e c t io n o f the dower a c t p ro v id e s th a t the widow

s h a l l be endowed o f one th ird p a r t o f a l l the land w hereof h er hus­

band was s e iz e d o f an e s ta te o f in h e ir ita n c e at any time during

the m arriage u n less the same s h a l l have been re lin q u is h e d in le g a l

form . By th is p r o v is io n i t i s the ch a ra c te r o f the t i t l e o f the

p ro p e r ty which determ ines the r ig h t . I t i s not the a c c id e n ta l con­

d i t io n o f the p ro p e rty which c o n t r o ls but the in t e r e s t o r extent

o f the t i t l e .

The le g is la t u r e does n o t say tttat the widow i s e n t i t l e d to

dower o f a l l the improved lands o f which the husband was s e iz e d ,

but i t says o f a l l the lands o f which he was s e ize d o f an e s ta te o f

in h e ir i t a n c e . The Court th e r e fo r e h e ld that the widow i s dowable

o f w ild or unimproved la n d s . Dower a tta ch es to a c c r e t io n s , to r i ­

parian e s t a t e s . This was h a ld in the case o f Gale v s . K inzie,gU

111 132.

In Brown v s . r,e te r so n ,4 4 111 363, the q u estion in v o lv e d was

whether the widow was (e n t it le d to dow er in com pensation r e c e iv e d

by h e ir s from p ro p e rty o f descen den t, condemned under pow er o f

eminent domain. The Court h e ld that where lands a re condemned

f o r p u b lic improvement, the assessm ent o f the damages th e r e fo r e ,

u n less the co n tra ry appears, s a t i s f i e s a l l the t i t l e to the p rop er

ty in c lu d in g the fe e s im p le . And a l l l e s s e r e s ta te s and the widow

having dower in the lan ds a p p rop ria ted by the c i t y f o r p u b lic u se ,

must in eq u ity be h e ld to have dower i the p roceed s p a id in s a t i s ­

fa c t io n o f a judgment a g a in st i t , as damages f o r such a p p rop r ia tion

v x .In L ieb v s . M ontague,102 T il 446, the cou rt h e ld th a t where a

person purchasing from the m ortgagor assumes to pay the m ortgage

as a p a r t o f the pu rch ase money, i f he ob ta in s a d isch a rge o f the

m ortg age .

The Court in the case o f ^avenport e t . a l . v s . F a ra r, in d is ­

cu ss in g the qu estion as to whatn e s ta te the husband must have in

land to e n t i t l e h is w ife to dower say , at common law a woman is

e n t i t le d t o ,b e endowed o f a l l the lands and tenements o f which her

husband was s e ize d in fe e s im ple o r fe e t a i l g en era l at. any time

during co v e rtu re and o f which any is su e which she might have had,

m ight by p o s s i b i l i t y have been h e ir . In a d d it io n to th is p ro ­

v is io n in the cotamon law, equi ta b le e s ta te s are now su b je c t to dower

and a l l r e a l e s ta te o f every d e s c r ip t io n , co n tra cte d f o r by the

husband in h is l i f e t im e , the t i t l e to which may be com pleted a f te r

h is d e ce a se , By e q u ita b le e s ta te s i s u n d erstood e q u ita b le e s ta te s

o f in h e ir l t a n c e .

Having co n s id ered the f i r s t d iv i s io n o r the p ro p e r ty on

which the r ig h t o f dower a tta ch e s , we w il l now co n s id e r th e second

d iv i s io n , o r the p ro p e rty on which dower does not a tta ch .

The e s ta te must c o n fe r the r ig h t to the immediate f r e e h o ld , '

Dower i s not a llow ed in e s ta te s o f rem ainder o r c o n v e rs io n e x p e c t ­

ant upon an e s ta te o f f r e e h o ld . And i f the e s ta te be su b je c t to

an ou tstan d in g fr e e h o ld e s ta te , which remains undeterm ined during

m arriage , no r ig h t o f dower a tta ch e s , f o r the s e ize n o f the f r e e ­

h o ld i s in the tenant f o r l i f e , and the rem ainder is n o t an e s ta te

o f i n h e r i t a n c e in po s e s s io n . I t i s not enough that the husband

or w ife i s s e ize d o f an e s ta te o f f r e e h o ld in p o s s e s s io n , ana an

e s ta te o f in h e r i t a n c e in rem ainder o r r e v e r s io n , but the i n h e r i t ­

ance as w ell as the f re e h o ld must be in p o s s e s s io n .

In Strawn v s . Straw n,50 111 333, the Court in d e l iv e r in g the

o p in io n say , that such an e s ta te though i t be in fe e w il l not g iv e

the w ife a r ig h t o f dower u n less by the death o f the in term ed ia te

f r e e h o ld e r , o r a s u n ende” o f th at e s ta te to the husband, the in ­

h e r ita n ce becomes e n t ir e in the husband during co v e r tu r e . In th is

case the surrender never took p la c e , as the r e v e r s io n e r d ied f i r s t

i and the r u le is w e ll s e t t le d that a widow is n o t dowable o f land

in which her husband had on ly a v ested rem ainder expectan t upon an

e s ta te f o r l i f e .

This p r in c ip le was a lso h e ld in the case o f K e l le t v s . Shepard

139 111 433,

An e s ta te f o r years between the f r e e h o ld and in h e r ita n ce w il l

not p reven t the t i t l e o f dower from a t ta c h in g . But the dower a t ­

taches s u b je c t to the in te rv e n in g e s ta te .

In N ico l v s . M i l l e r ,37 111 387, the Court h e ld that rea l es­

ta t e , the s to ck in trade o f a p a r tn e rsh ip , d ea lin g in land and

i h e ld in t r u s t , by one o f th e ir number f o r the pu rpose o f th e ir

b u s in e ss , i s p e rso n a l p rop erty o f which th e w ife o f th e p a r tn e r i s

not dow able.T he same p r in c ip le is a lso h e ld in the case o f N ico l

v s . O gden,29 1 1 1 3 2 3 ,

wIn o rd e r to e n t i t l e the husband o r w ife to dower th ere must

hj|ve been a s e iz e n in the husband o r w ife during co v e r tu re .

In Cobb v s . O ld s f ie ld the Court h e ld that to e n t i t l e the widow

to dower, the burden o f p r o o f i s upon h er to show th a t h er deceased

husband was during eov ertu re s e ize d o f a le g a l o r e q u ita b le e s ta te

o f in h e ir ita n c e in the p rem ises .

In Gordon v s . D ick s o n ,131 111 I 4 l , i t was h e ld th at p o s s e s s io n

o f land under c la im o f ow nersh ip, a f fo r d s prim a f a c ie ev iden ce o f

se ize n in f e e and the f a c t that a p a rty has had p o s s e s s io n o f land

under such cla im o f ownership and has used i t f o r s e v e ra l years and

f i n a l l y s e l l s and conveys the same, a f fo r d s s u f f i c i e n t ev iden ce o f

s e iz e n to e n t i t l e the widow to dow er, i ’h is p r in c ip le i s a lso h e ld

in the cases o f N ico l v s . O gden,29 11132b, B a iley v s . West, 21 111

290, and ITicol v s . Todd, 70 111 295.

An e s ta te in f e e s im ple i s the h ig h e s t in t e r e s t in land knownb

to law and i t i s u n n ecessary to add that such an e s ta te i s s u b je c t

to dower in I l l i n o i s .

By the i7 th s e c t io n o f the a ct o f 1874, the widow is not

e n t i t l e d to dower in lands both taken and g iv en in exchange. She

is in such case put to her e l e c t i o n as to what lands she s h a l l be

endowed.

An e s ta te f o r l i f e is not su b je c t to dow er, i't i s p la in that

dower does not a tta ch upon an e s ta te which the husband o r w ife

h o ld s f o r h is o r h er own l i f e , as the r ig h t i s but a co n t in u a t io n

...Of-ft.

Where an e s ta te is c rea ted f o r ~ & r l i f e o f the tenant and the

l i f e o f one o r more th ird person s i t i s h a rd ly n ecessary to add

that in th is case dower does n<t a t ta c h .

N othing i s b e t t e r e s ta b lis h e d than the p r i n c ip l e that money

d ir e c te d to be employed in the purchase o f lan d , and lan d d ir e c te d

to be s o ld and turned in to money are to be con s id ered as th at

s p e c ie s o f p ro p e r ty in to which they are d ir e c te d to be con v erted .

And t h is , in whatever manner the d i r e c t io n i s g iv e n .

S in ce the s ta tu te g iv in g dower in e q u ita b le e s ta te s , th ere

can be n orea son a b le doubt o f the r ig h t to dower in money im pressed

in equi ty w ith the q u a li t ie s o f r e a le s ta te . And th e r e fo r e , i f a

husband o r w ife c o n tr a c ts to s e l l and then marry b e fo re payment

o f the purchase money o r conveyan ce, by th is c o n tr a c t the land is

deemed to be money, and h is widow w il l not be e n t i t le d to dower.

In the case o f Stookey v s . Sto key e t .a l ,8 9 111 40, the Court

sa id we. p e r c e iv e no d i f f e r e n c e in p r in c ip le in the le g a l e f f e c t o f

an agreement to convey to a s tra n g er f o r a v a lu a b le c o n s id e r a t io n

and an agreement to convey to a c h i ld f o r a good c o n s id e r a t io n .

Long b e fo r e the t e s t a t o r 's m arriage to h is widow h is son had by

a f u l l com pliance with the terms o f the agreement on h is p a rt be­

come th e e q u ita b le owner o f the p ra m se s and was e n t i t l e d to a

deed ftrom h is fa th e r who h e ld the naked le g a l t i t l e in tru s t f o r

him and the subsequent m arriage and death o f th e t e s t a t o r d id not

in v e s t h is widow w ith a r ig h t o f dower in the p ra n ise s as again st

the son .

==w =Dower as aga in st the v e n d o r 's l i e n f o r unpaid purchase money.

By purchase money w ith ir the meaning o f the dower law i s money due

the vendor o f the land purchased on c r e d it , not money borrowed o f

a th ird p erson to pay f o r the la n d . In the case o f Himgumin vs .

Cochrane, 51 111 382, the Court h e ld that the w idow 's r ig h t to dower

i s su b ord in a te to the l i e n o f the vendor f o r the purchase money.

And i f the pu rch aser conveys the p ro p e rty back to the vendor in

good f a it h in o rd er to ca n ce l the in d eb ted n ess , h is w idow ,although

she does n o t J o in in the conveyance i s barred o f h er r ig h t o f

dow er.

We s h a l l now co n s id e r the r ig h t o f dower as a f fe c t e d by

act o f the husband b e fo re m arriage and during co v e r tu re . By the

th ird s e c t io n o f the dower act o f 1874, where a p erson s e iz e d o f an

e s ta te o f in h e ir ita n c e b e fo r e m arriage , execu te a v a l id m ortgage,

the su rv iv in g husband o r w ife sh a ll be e n t it le d to dower out o f the

lands m ortgaged as aga in st every p erson except the m ortgagee and

th ose c la im in g under him.

The widow i s e n i s l e d to dower im m ediately a f t e r her husband's

death . I t is p rov id ed by s ta tu te „hat the h e ir o r p erson having th-

next e s ta te o f in h e ir ita n c e o f which any pe son i s e n t i t le d to

dower s h a l l la y o f f and a ss ig n such dower as soon as p r a c t ic a b le

a f t e r the death o f the husband o r w ife o f such p e rs o n . I t i s a lso

p rov id ed th a t i f the dower i s n ot a ssign ed w ith in one month a f t e r

the death o f husband o r w ife then the su rv iv o r may sue f o r and

wre co v e r The same by p e t i t i o n in ch an cery .

In W hiting v s . N ic o l ,4 5 111 2o0, the Court say that where

the p erson goes abroad and has n ot been heard o f f o r a lon g time

the persum ption that he s t i l l l iv e s ceases at the e x p ir a t io n o f

seven y ea rs , from the p e r io d when he was la s t heard from , and at

the ex p ira «,icn o f seven yea rs , the widow has a r ig h t to sue f o r

h er dower.

By s ta tu te in a l l cases m which q u a lity and ooaadition o f the

P rop erty w il l p erm it, i t i s p rov id ed tha.t dower be assigned by

meets and bounds. In Atkin v s . Meri-el the • Court h e ld that where

com m issioners are appointed to a l l o t dower i t is th e ir duty to se t

o f f to the widow her dower by meets and bounds, a ccord in g to the

q u a lity and q u a n tity o f the p ro p e r ty . But the widow may r e ta in

p o s s e s s io n as p rov id d by s ta tu te , the d w e llin g house in which h er

husband dw elt next b e fo r e h is d eath . By s ta tu te dowe" need not be

a ssign ed out o f ' each tra c t s e p e ra te lv but may be assigned in a

body But -he s ta tu te does not a u th or ize a llo tm en t o f dower in one

body where d i f f e r e n t pu rch asers h o ld sep era te t r a c t s .

In the case o f Schnebly v s . S ch n eb ly ,26 111 l i d , the Court

say that except by agreem ent, dower must be ap p ortion ed out o f

each p a rt o f the land and not in a p a r t f o r the w hole, and that

the com m issioners in a ss ig n in g dower should have r e fe re n ce to quan­

t i t y and q u a lit y . In the case o f Haines v s . H e m o t t . l B H i <547,

the q u estion in v o lv ed was the p a r t i t i o n o f 3a c e r ta in number o f

acres o f land between two h e ir s and the assignm ent o f th e w idow 's

dow er. In th is case the com m issioners set o f f a ce r ta in number o f

a cres to each o f the h e ir s and out o f one o f the h e ir s share they

ass ign ed to the widow h e r dower, le a v in g the o th e r h e i r 's p a rt free

from dower and the cou rt h e ld th a t the whole burden o f the dower

cannot be a ssign ed to the e s ta te o f one h e ir , le a v in g the e s ta te o f

the o th e r h e ir e n t i r e ly f r e e . The p r o v is io n o f th e dower a c t o f

1845, that the widow might r e ta in p o sse ss io n o f th e d w e llin g house

u n t i l her dower was a ss ign ed m erely a f fo r d e d a d d it io n a l remedy to

enable the widow to en fo rce h e r dower and co n ferred on h er no

v ested r ig h t . This was h e ld m T oo le v s . Jackson, Id H i Ap. 560,

In Jones v s . G ilb e r t , I2o i 'l l 127, the c o u r . sa id that the

widow was n ot e n t i t l e d t>. take homestead and a lso one th ird o f the

e n t ir e e s ta te , but she is e n t i t le d to dower on ly in one th ir d o f

the r e s id e a f t e r d edu ctin g hom estead, and whwi-e the e n t ire e s ta te :

i s w ith in >the hom estead and o f le s s va lu e than one thousand d o l ­

la r s , the widow may cla im both homestead and dower, bptt p r o p e r ly

she takes h er dower s u b je c t to the hom estead.

In Walker v s . Duan 108 111 2:56, the cou rt h eld that the accept

ance o f dower from lands o th e r than homestead w aives h er r ic h i

o f hom estead. In S te e l v s . L a fram bois , 6a 111 456, the cou rt say

that where a person a cq u u 'e land s u b je c t to a r ig h t o f dower and

a fterw ards d ie s , and dower i s a l l o t t e d to h is widow, upon the

assignm ent o f dower on the e ld e r r ig h t , a p r o p o r t io n a te p a rt o n ly

shou ld be taken froto the dower f i r s t aasign «d and the res id u e from

77 =the o th e r p o r t io n o f the p rem ises .

In Meyer v s . P f f i e f e r ,5 0 111 485 the cou rt says th a t the

widow cannot com plain that the ye a r ly va lue o f h er dower in sev­

e ra l p a r c e ls o f land is charged upon a l l , and n ot in se v e ra l

amounts on sep era te p a r c e ls . I t g iv e s h er a h ig h er and b e t t e r se c ­

u r i t y .

I w il l now co n s id e r , the d o c t r in e o f e s top p e l as a f fe c t in g

the r ig h t o f dower. In the case o f McKee v s . Brown,45 111 130, i t

was h e ld that where a w ife jo in e d in a conveyance with h er husband

r e le a s in g h er r ig h t o f dower, she i s a fte rw a rd s , in the absence

o f fra u d , estopped to se t up h er r ig h t to dow er. The case o f Adams

v s . Adams ,79 111 517, e s ta b l is h t h is same p r i n c ip l e .

In the case o f A llen v s . A l l e n ,112 111 223, the cou rt h e ld th

that where the widow was a p a rty to a p ro ce e d in g in which a decree

i s en tered by consent f o r s a le o f land f r e e from dower and jo in s

in the conveyance and r e c e iv e s h er share o f the p r o c e e d s , she is

estopped a fterw ard s to a s s e r t a r ig h t o f dower in th a t p o r t io n o f k

the p roceed s to which the pu rch aser i s e n t i t l e d .

In the case o f G ilb e r t v s . R eynolds, o l 111 WI3 , the cou rt

says that a d iv o r ce d w ife i s e q u ita b ly estopped a f t e r a d e la y o f

f i f t e e n y ea rs , w ith knowledge o f the d iv o r c e and h er husband 's

rem arriage , both e f fe c t e d twenty years b e fo re to a sse r t the in ­

v a l i d i t y o f the d iv o r ce and so to cla im dower in lands acqu ired by

the husband s in c e the d iv o r c e , and by him s o ld , the second w ife

y ojo in in g in the deed . But the widow is n e t estopped to a sse r t h er

r ig h t o f dower where a p u rch aser at an a d m in is tr a to r 's s a le pays

o f a m ortgage r e le a s in g dower, by any statem ents made by the ad­

m in is t r a to r at the time o f s a le that the sa le is f r e e from her

cla im o f dower she not bein g p re se n t and he h aving no a u th o r ity

to make them. This was h e ld in Uox. e t . a l . v s . G a rst ,I0 5 111 342,

I t i s a lso im portant to co n s id e r the s ta t ite o f l im it a t io n as

a f fe c t in g dower in th is s ta t$

The p resen t s ta tu te in th is s t a t e ,s e c t io n s ix , i s taken

from law 1839. I t p rov id es that every p erson in p o sse ss io n o f

lands and tenements under c la im and c o lo r o f t i t l e made in good

f a i t h and who sh a ll f o r seven s u c c e s s iv e years con tin u e in such

p o s s e s s io n an d sh all a ls o during sa id time pay a l l taxes l e g a l ly

assessed on such lands and tenements sh a ll be h e ld to be the le g a l

owner o f such lands and tenements to the ex ten t and a ccord in g to

the p u rp ort o f h is o r h er pap er t i t l e . A ll person s h o ld in g under

such p o s s e s s io n d e v ise o r d escen t b e fo r e sa id seven yea rs sh a ll

have exp ired and who s h a ll con tin u e such p o s s e s s io n , and con tin u e

to pay the taxes as a fo r e s a id , so as to com plete the p o s s e s s io n ,

and payment o f taxes f o r the tim e req u ired sh a ll be e n t i t l e d to

the b e n e f i t o f th is s e c t io n .

The f i r s t case on th is s u b je c t was the case o f Owen v s . Pea­

cock , 38 111 ,'3 3 , in th is case the cou rt h e ld th a t under the

f i r s t s e c t io n o f the l im it a t io n a ct o fjo 3 9 , a widow must pursue

51

her remedy as a ga in st the p arty ,w h ose p o s s e s s io n conform s to the

requirem ents o f the a c t , w ith in seven years th e re in p r e s c r ib e d or

h er cla im w i l l be b a rred .

In the case o f Bryan v s . M elton, 125 111 647, the Court says

that the remedy to e n fo r ce the r ig h t o f dower is embraced w ith in t.

the p r o v is io n o f s e c t io n s ix o f the a c t o f 1872, in r e la t io n to

th is s u b je c t : and a widow must pursue h er remedy w ith in the seven

years p r e s c r ib e d o r her c la im w il l be barred as aga in st the p a rty

who has been in adverse p o s s e s s io n , f o r seven s u cce s s iv e years,

under and c la im o f t i t l e a cq u ired in good f a i t h , and has a lso

during that tim e p a id a l l taxes on the lan d . The ca se o f Stowe

v s . S te e le r e fe r to this same p r i n c ip l e .

the next s u b je c t to be co n s id e re d w il l be damages in a c t io n s

o f dower.

By s ta tu te in th is s ta te i s p rov id ed that whenever an action

is brought f o r the purpose o f r e c o v e r in g dower, he or she sh a ll

be e n t i t le d to r e co v e r reason ab le damages from th e time o f demand

and r e fu s a l to a ss ig n same, an d they may be a ssessed by the Court

o r a ju r y may be empaneled f o r th a t p u rp ose .

Damages under the 26th s e c t io n o f the dower a c t are d iscu ssed

in the ca se o f Strawn v s . Straw n,50 111 256. In th is case the Court

says that the widow is not e n t i t l e d to damages f o r non-assignm ent

o f dower u n t i l she makes demand. But an a ctu a l f o r m a l demand has

not been h e ld n e c e s s a r y ,i f f a c t s appear from which i t can be seen

th at the h e ir o r rem ainder man is u n w ill in g and that such demand

would have a v a ile d n o th in g , then i t i s n ot n e ce s s a ry . Ur i f the

| h e ir s o r rem ainder man are m inors then i t c may be d ispen sed w ith,

as they o r th e ir guardian cannot ass ign dower. Such a demand would

be u s e le s s , and a s u it commenced by the widow w i l l be a s u f f i c i e n t

demand.

But the damages a ga in st the m inor h e ir f o r n ot a ss ig n in g dower

can be re cov ered o n ly from the date o f b r in g in g the s u i t . This was

h e ld in Bonner v s . P e te r s o n ,24 111 253 , This ca se a ls o e s ta b lis h e s

the p r in c ip le that beg in n in g s u it i s a v a l id demand under s ta tu te .

In the case o f B ed ford v s . B ed ford , 136 111 354, the Court

says th at the dower a c t a llow s damages from the time o f demand and

r e fu s a l to a ss ig n dower. And a th ird o f the ren ts o f the land

in which th ere is dower may c o n s t itu te a p rop er measure o f such

damages. But u n t i l demand i s made the su rv iv in g husband o r w ife

i s n o t e n t i t l e d to damages.

The la s t s u b je c t in r e la t io n to dower and one o f much impor­

ta n ce , i s that r e la t in g to p roceed u re in a c t io n s o f dower in th is

S ta te . They are s ta r te d by p e t i t i o n , and the p e t i t i o n may be

f i l e d in any cou rt o f comr etend ju r i s d i c t i o n in the county where

the e s ca te or any p a r t o f i t i s s i tu a te d .

The p e t i t i o n must s e t fo rth the n atu re o f the cla im and ca re -

1 f u l l y name the lands in which dower i s c la im ed . They must a lso set

fo r t h the in te r e s t o f a l l p a r t ie s in te re s te d as fa r as they are

In th e case o f Davenport v s . Pa^er the Court h e ld that the

words "ow ner" o r "p r o p r ie t o r " do not s u f f i c i e n t l y d e sc r ib e the

e s ta te o f the deceas ed husband. In fa n ts may p e t i t i o n by guardians

or next f r ie n d , and o th e r p e rs o n s , winder g u a rd ia n sh ip , by con serv a -

| t o r . A lso h e ir s o r any person in te re s te d may p e t i t i o n the Court

to have dower ass ign ed ^o the p erson e n t i t le d to i t . Every person

in te re s te d in the prem ises and who is n ot a p e t i t i o n e r i s made a

defend nt to the p e t i t i o n .

And where there are any versons in te re s te d whose names are

unknown, o r the amount o f the&r in te r e s t in the p ro p e r ty is n o t kno

known, i t must be s ta te d in the p e t i t i o n , and where t h e i r names

are unknown they are made p a r t ie s to the p e t i t i o n by the d e s c r ip ­

t io n o f the unknown owners o f the p rem ises , o r as the unknown

h e ir s o f any p erson who may have been in te re s te d in the s u i t .

The summons i s the same as in chancery and where the p a r t ie s

in in t e r e s t are unknown, they are n o t i f i e d as in cases in chancery

by advertisem en t, and the defendant may be n o t i f i e d in the same

manner, when i t appear by a f f i d a v i t that defendant r e s id e s o r is

gone out o f the S ta te , o r i s con cea led w ith in th is S ta te so that

p ro ce s s cannot be served on him. The a f f i d a v it must s ta te the

p la ce o f r e s id e n ce o f such defendant i f known.

N on -res id en t defendan ts may be served by a copy o f the p e t i ­

t io n in the same manner th at such defendant in chancery may be

served and any defendant who is not summoned, served w ith a copy o f

the p e t i t i o n ,o r does not r e c e iv e the n o t ic e req u ired co oe sen i

him by m a il, may appear and answer the p e t i t i o n w ith in the time

and upon the same co n d it io n s and. w ith l ik e e f f e c t as in o th e r cas­

es in chancery .

The p e t i t i o n e r may in h is p e t i t i o n re q u ire the defendan ts to

answer h id p e t i t i o n under oa th . In t h is case the answer has the

same e f f e c t as an answer under oath in chancery .

Any p erson in te re s te d may in te rp le a d and the cou rt d ec id es

upon the r ig h ts o f person s thus appearing the same as though they

had been p a r t ie s in the f i r s t p la c e .

This p e t i t i o n is to be heard and determ ined by the cou rt,u p on

the p e t i t i o n ,a n s w e r ,r e p l ic a t io n , e x h ib i t s , and o th e r testim on y ,

w ithout the n e c e s s it y o f form al p le a d in g .

When the Court adjudges that a person i s e n t i t l e d to dower,

i t s h a l l be en tered o f re co rd w ith a d e s c r ip t io n o f the land ou t

o f which he o r she is to be endowed, and the Court then a p p o in ts

th ree corrm ission e r s ,n o t in any way conneted w ith the p a r t ie s in ­

te r e s te d , and eacn must take an oath that they w ill a l l o t to the

widow h er dower, w ithout showing any p a r t i a l i t y , and to the best o f

th e ir a b i l i t y .

In H eisen v s . H eisen , 145 111 658, the Court says th a t when

the land is o f such a n atu re th at i t would be im p ra ct ica b le to

s e t i t out by meets and bou n ds,th e Court should w ithout a p p oin tin g

co m m is s io n e rs ,a llo t dower out o f the ren ts and p r o f i t s as p rov id ed

by S e c . 89 o f the Dower A ct o f 1874.