Page images
PDF
EPUB

the election should be made is the forum of the original probate.

§ 832. Waiver of Dower Includes Claim of Dower in Lands Conveyed by Husband Alone During Coverture.

When a widow elects to accept in lieu of dower the provision made for her in her husband's will, she unquestionably waives her dower right in all property owned by him at the time of his death. But the question has arisen as to whether or not such election is a waiver of dower rights in real estate sold and conveyed during coverture by her husband alone. If the will, either in express terms or by implication, shows that the testator intended the provision in favor of his wife to be in lieu of any other right or claim affecting his estate, an election to take under the will bars all other claims. But the rule can not be confined to such a narrow scope. If the intention of the testator was that the provision made for his wife shall be taken in lieu of dower, an election to accept under the will is undoubtedly a waiver of dower rights not only in property of which the testator dies seised, but of all property conveyed by himself alone dur

can not claim under a will and against it, too, and an acceptance of the provisions of the will in Tennessee would bind her everywhere," citing Jones v. Gerock, 59 N. C. 190, and Blunt v. Gee, 5 Call (Va.) 481, 492.

5 Slaughter v. Garland, 40 Miss. 172.

"If she abandons the will, then her rights of property, wherever situated, are determined by the

law of the testator's domicile. There can be but one renunciation where the estate is dispersed in several jurisdictions. The widow can not elect in one forum to abide by the will, and abandon it in another. Her election, if made at all, must be in the forum of the original probate, whose laws fix her rights as distributee in all the jurisdictions where property may be situated."-Wilson v. Cox, 49 Minn. 538, 545.

ing his lifetime, otherwise the widow would have both testamentary and statutory rights. The rule would apply with greater force had the husband conveyed real property under a warranty deed, for then his estate would be liable to make good the loss."

§833. Rights of Widow Who Elects to Take Under Will, as to Intestate Property.

Election may be either for or against the will. If the donee accepts the provision made for him in the will, he thereupon releases all claim in the property disposed of by the will which he owns or in which he has an interest. His rights in the property pass to the one to whom it was given by the will.' Thus, if a widow elects to take under the will in lieu of dower, her dower rights are waived. But such action does not take from her the right to succeed to intestate property of the decedent under the statute of distributions. It may be stated as a general rule that accepting a devise of lands or other provision in lieu of dower does not deprive a widow of

6 Raines v. Corbin, 24 Ga. 185; Haynie v. Dickens, 68 Ill. 267; Allen v. Pray, 12 Me. 138; Buffington v. Fall River Nat. Bank, 113 Mass. 246; Fairchild v. Marshall, 42 Minn. 14, 43 N. W. 563; Hornsey v. Casey, 21 Mo. 545; Spalding V. Hershfield, 15 Mont. 253, 39 Pac. 88; Corry v. Lamb, 45 Ohio St. 203, 12 N. E. 660; Stokes v. Norwood, 44 S. C. 424, 430, 22 S. E. 417.

Contra: Bates v. McDowell, 58 Miss. 815 (by statute); Steele v. Fisher, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 435. And see Hall v. Smith, 103 Mo.

289, 15 S. W. 621, as affected by
the statute of Missouri.

The same rule applied where
the will provided that "the por-
tion allotted to my wife shall be in
lieu of her dower and statutory
right in all property belonging to
me at my decease."-Howe Lum-
ber Co. v. Parker, 105 Minn. 310,
117 N. W. 518.

7 Ardesoife v. Bennett, 2 Dick. 463; Dewar v. Maitland, L. R. 2 Eq. 834; Walker v. Upson, 74 Conn. 128, 49 Atl. 904; Chenault v. Scott, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1974, 66 S. W. 759.

[ocr errors]

her interest in lands of which her husband died intestate; nor in lands acquired after the making of the will, when not passing thereunder; nor in his undisposed of personal estate;10 nor in stocks standing in the joint

8 Davidson v. Boomer, 18 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 475; Vaughan V. Vaughan's Heirs, 30 Ala. 329; In re Evans' Appeal, 51 Conn. 435; Nelson v. Pomeroy, 64 Conn. 257, 29 Atl. 534; Bennett v. Packer, 70 Conn. 357, 66 Am. St. Rep. 112, 39 Atl. 739; Sutton v. Read, 176 Ill. 69, 51 N. E. 801; Collins v. Collins, 126 Ind. 559, 25 N. E. 704, 28 N. E. 190; In re Kempton, 23 Pick. (40 Mass.) 163; Wall v. Dickens, 66 Miss. 655, 6 So. 515; Van Arsdale v. Van Arsdale, 26 N. J. L. 404; Havens v. Havens, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 324; Pinckney v. Pinckney, 1 Bradf. (N. Y.) 269, 276; Hatch v. Bassett, 52 N. Y. 359; Lefevre v. Lefevre, 59 N. Y. 434; Carder v. Board of Comrs., 16 Ohio St. 353; Jones v. Lloyd, 33 Ohio St. 572; Spangler v. Dukes, 39 Ohio St. 642; In re Thompson's Estate, 229 Pa. St. 542, 79 Atl. 173; Seabrook v. Seabrook, 10 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 495.

A legacy to a widow in lieu of dower bears interest from the date of the testator's death, and the fact that the provision was greater than her dower would have been does not affect the case.-In re Combs, 3 Demarest (N. Y.) 348.

Lapsed and Void Legacies, see §§ 681, 781. See, also, Matter of Hodgman, 140 N. Y. 421, 427, 35

N. E. 660; Lee v. Tower, 124 N. Y. 370, 26 N. E. 943.

9 Raines v. Corbin, 24 Ga. 185; McElfresh v. Schley, 2 Gill (Md.) 182; Durham v. Rhodes, 23 Md. 233; Sutton v. Askew, 66 N. C. 172, 8 Am. Rep. 500; Philadelphia v. Davis, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 490; Hall v. Hall, 2 McCord Eq. (S. C.) 269; Cunningham v. Shannon, 4 Rich, Eq. (S. C.) 135.

10 Pickering v. Stamford, 3 Ves. Jun. 492; Lett v. Randall, 3 Smale & G. 83; Colleton v. Garth, 6 Sim. 19; Oldham v. Carleton, 2 Cox 399; Jennings v. Smith, 29 Ill. 116; Collins v. Carman, 5 Md. 503, 528; Sullings v. Richmond, 5 Allen (87 Mass.) 187, 81 Am. Dec. 742; Kempton's Case, 23 Pick. (40 Mass.) 163; Johnson v. Goss, 132 Mass. 274; State v. Holmes, 115 Mich. 456, 73 N. W. 548; Dildine v. Dildine, 32 N. J. Eq. 78; Bane v. Wick, 14 Ohio St. 505; Barber v. Hite, 39 Ohio St. 185; Leinaweaver v. Stoever, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) 160; Carmen's Estate, 11 W. N. C. (Pa.) 95; Reed's Estate, 82 Pa. St. 428; Demoss v. Demoss, 7 Cold. (47 Tenn.) 256; Findley v. Findley, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 434. See, also, Gotzian's Estate, 34 Minn. 159, 57 Am. Rep. 43. 24 N. W. 920; Skellenger v. Skellenger, 32 N. J. Eq. 659; Waddle v. Terry, 4 Cold.

names of herself and the testator;11 nor in the statutory provisions for widows' temporary support;12 nor in lapsed or void legacies or devises.18

§834. Rights of Widow as Affected by Debts of Husband.

The estate of a decedent is liable for his debts, except such property as may be exempt from execution. And a widow who accepts a legacy or devise in lieu of her dower can not claim the gift in preference to her husband's creditors, but takes the property subject to the

(44 Tenn.) 256; Dupree's Admr. v. Cary, 6 Leigh (Va.) 36.

Contra: Hardy v. Scales, 54 Wis. 452, 11 N. W. 590.

11 Dummer v. Pitcher, 5 Sim. 35; Sanford v. Sanford, 45 N. Y. 723; s. c., 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 641; 8. c., 58 N. Y. 69; O'Driscoll v. Koger, 2 Desaus. Eq. (S. C.) 295. See, also, Coates v. Stevens, 1 You. & C. 66.

As to lands standing in their joint names, see Exchange & Deposit Bank v. Stone, 80 Ky. 109; Crenshaw v. Creek, 52 Mo. 98; Ketchum v. Walsworth, 5 Wis. 95; 68 Am. Dec. 49.

12 Miller v. Stepper, 32 Mich. 194; McManus' Estate, 14 Phila. (Pa.) 660; Stineman's Appeal, 34 Pa. St. 394; Wilber's Case, 52 Wis. 295, 9 N. W. 162. See, also, Griffith v. Canning, 54 Mo. 282; Speidel's Appeal, 107 Pa. St. 18; Farnsworth v. Cole, 42 Wis. 403.

13 Pickering v. Stamford, 3 Ves. Jun. 332, 492; Simpson v. Hornsby, 3 Ves. Jun. 335; Garthshore v.

Chalie, 10 Ves. Jun. 17; Jones v. Jones, 8 Gill (Md.) 197; Johnson v. Johnson, 32 Minn. 513, 21 N. W. 725; Hand v. Marcy, 28 N. J. Eq. 59; Vernon v. Vernon, 53 N. Y. 351; Power v. Cassidy, 79 N. Y. 602, 35 Am. Rep. 550; Melchor v. Burger, 21 N. C. (1 Dev. & B. Eq.) 634. But see Gibbon v. Gibbon, 40 Ga. 562; Bullard v. Benson, 31 Hun (N. Y.) 104; s. c., 96 N. Y. 499, 48 Am. Rep. 646; s. c., 1 Demarest (N. Y.) 486; Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 43 N. Y. 424.

In New York it has been held that a widow who elects to take a provision expressly stated to be instead of dower and of all claims against the estate, can not participate in lapsed legacies.-Bullard v. Benson, 1 Demarest (N. Y.) 486; s. c., 31 Hun (N. Y.) 104; s. c., 96 N. Y. 499, 48 Am. Rep. 646; Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 43 N. Y. 424. But see Vernon v. Vernon, 53 N. Y. 351; Power v. Cassidy, 79 N. Y. 602, 35 Am. Rep. 550.

lien of his debts.14 But if the estate is solvent, the widow is not required to contribute toward the payment of debts out of the property accepted by her.15 Where the widow accepts benefits under the will of her husband in lieu of dower she takes as a purchaser for a valuable consideration, and although her rights may be inferior to those of creditors, they are superior to those of any other devisee or legatee.16

§ 835. Rights of Widow Where Property Reverts to Her Estate Because of Her Remarriage.

A husband may make a testamentary gift of property to his wife in lieu of dower, she to have the use thereof "so long as she remains unmarried"; and in the event of marriage may confer some other benefit in lieu of

14 Miller v. Buell, 92 Ind. 482; Hinson v. Ennis, 81 Ky. 363; Beekman v. Vandeveer, 3 Demarest (N. Y.) 619; Wanger's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 346.

15 Lord v. Lord, 23 Conn. 327, 330; Carper v. Crowl, 149 Ill. 465, 36 N. E. 1040; Dunning v. Dunning, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 462, 31 N. Y. Supp. 719; affirmed, 147 N. Y. 686, 42 N. E. 722.

But see, In re Barnett's Appeal, 104 Pa. St. 342, to the effect that where a third of the estate is left to the widow in lieu of dower, she is entitled only to that proportion of what may remain after deducting debts and the expenses of administration.

See, also, Beekman v. Vanderveer, 3 Demarest (N. Y.) 619.

If a widow who has agreed to accept a provision in her husband's will instead of her dower desires to enforce the payment of an amount equal to her dower interest, she must make the creditors of the estate parties to the action. -Beekman v. Vanderveer, 3 Demarest (N. Y.) 619.

16 Steele v. Steele's Admr., 64 Ala. 438, 462, 38 Am. Rep. 15.

As to abatement of a legacy to the widow in lieu of her dower, see §§ 698, 699, 806.

But the general rule is that a widow taking an estate in lieu of dower stands in the position of a purchaser, and is not liable to abatement unless it be so provided in the will.-Security Co. v. Bryant, 52 Conn. 311, 52 Am. Rep. 599.

« PreviousContinue »