231 Toomey v. Mclean, 105 Mass. 122; Stirbling v. Ross, 16 III. 122; Mc-clure v. Fairfield, 153 Pa. St. 411. 26 Atl. 446; Vickers v. Henry, 110 N. C. 371, 15 S. E. 115; Waller v. Waller's Adm'r, 33 Grat (Va.) 83. And see ante, p. 89.

232 Trustees of Poor of Queen Anne's Co. v. Pratt 10 Md. 5; Mantz v. Buchanan, 1 Md. Ch. 202; Holden v. Boggess, 20 W. Va. 62; Sandford v. Mclean, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 117; Robbins v. Robbins, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 174; Griffin v. Reece, 1 Har. (Del.) 508. But see House v. Fowle, 22 Or. 303, 29 Pac. 890; Whiteaker v. Belt 25 Or. 490, 36 Pac. 534; Dayton v. Corser, 51 Minn. 406,

53 N. W. 717; Vinson v. Gentry (Ky.) 21 S. W. 578; Butler v. Fitzgerald, 43 Neb. 192, 61 N. W. 640. Bankruptcy of the husband during coverture is no bar. Porter v. Lazear, 109 U. S. 84, 3 Sup. Ct 58; Id., 87 Pa, St 513; In re Bartenbach, 11 N. B. R. 61, Fed. Cas. No. 1,068; In re Lawrence, 49 Conn. 411. Cf. Dudley v. Easton, 104 U. S. 99. The wife is, in some states, allowed dower on bankruptcy of husband as in case of death. Warford v. Noble, 9 Biss. 320, 2 Fed. 202; Rhea v. Meridith, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 605.

233 Moore v. Mayor, etc., 8 N. Y. 110; Baker v. Railway Co., 122 Mo. 396, 30 S. W. 301; French v. Lord, 69 Me. 537. But see Nye v. Railroad Co., 113 Mass. 277. The dower right attaches to the proceeds. Bonner v. Peterson, 44 111. 253; In re New York & B. Bridge, 75 Hun, 558, 27 N. Y. Supp. 597;

§ 60)

Dower-how Defeated

Devices to Bar Dower.

The husband may have estates conveyed to him under such limitations that dower will not attach. These are called "devices to bar dower." 234

Conveyance by Husband.

Conveyances by the husband before marriage prevent dower at taching,235 unless made to defraud the wife;236 but no alienation or incumbrance by the husband alone during the coverture is good against the wife,237 nor is a bona fide purchaser, ignorant of her dower right, protected.238 But by statute in some states the husband's alienations are made effectual against the wife.239 The doctrine of conversion may operate in other cases to cut off dower, as when, before marriage, the husband has made a binding contract to sell.240 On the other hand, the widow of the purchaser would be entitled to dower.241 So, too, there would be dower in money directed to be laid out in land,242 but not in land ordered to be turned into money.243 In several states, if the husband make an exchange 244 during coverture of one tract of land for another, his widow cannot have dower in both tracts. She must elect out of which she will claim.245

Wheeler v. Kirtland, 27 N. J. Eq. 534. A dedication of land to public uses bars dower. Gwynne v. City of Cincinnati, 3 Ohio, 24; Steel v. Board of Education, 31 Wkly. Cin. Law Bul. 84; Duncan v. City of Terre Haute, 85 Ind. 105; Venable v. Railway Co., 112 Mo. 103, 20 S. W. 493. And see Chouteau v. Railway Co., 122 Mo. 375, 22 S. W. 458, and 30 S. W. 299.

234 For examples of these, see 2 Minor, Inst. 146; Ray v. Pung. 5 Barn.

& Ald. 561.

235 Oakley v. Oakley, 69 Hun, 121, 23 N. Y. Supp. 267; Rawlings v. Adams.

7 Md. 26; Richardson v. Skolfield, 45 Me. 3S6; Kintner v. Mcrae, 2 Ind. 453; Gaines v. Gaines' Ex'r, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 295; Firestone v. Firestone, 2 Ohio St. 415. But see In re Pulling's Estate, 97 Mich. 375, 56 N. W. 765.

236 Such as a secret conveyance on the day before marriage. Stewart's Lessee v. Stewart, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 48; Cranson v. Cranson, 4 Mich. 230; Pomeroy v. Pomeroy, 54 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 228; Brewer v. Connell, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 500; Brooks v. Mcmeekin, 37 S. C. 285, 15 S. E. 1019.

237 Rank v. Hanna, 6 Ind. 20; Thompson v. Mccorkle, 136 Ind. 484, 34 N. E. 813; Graves v. Fligor, 140 Ind. 25, 38 N. E. 853; Chase v. Van Meter, 140 Ind. 321, 39 N. E. 455; Venable v. Railway Co. (Mo. Sup.) 19 S. W. 45; Deans v. Pate, 114 N. C. 194, 19 S. E. 146; Stein v. Stein, 80 Md. 306, 30 Atl. 703; 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3249; 1 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 333. The grantee of the husband is estopped to deny the husband's title, Browne v. Potter, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 164; but not when the conveyance is a quitclaim. Sparrow v. Kingman, 1 N. Y. 242. And see Coakley v. Perry, 3 Ohio St. 344; Gardner v. Greene, 5 R. I. 104.

238 Dick v. Doughten, 1 Del. Ch. 320. The purchaser's estate is only de-tented as to one-third during the life of the dowress. Id.

239 As where she is dowable only of lands of which he died seised. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3202 E; 1 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 334. And see Mcrae v. Mcrae, 78 Md. 270, 27 Atl. 1038. But a voluntary conveyance for the purpose of defeating dower will be ineffectual. Jiggitts v. Jiggitts, 40 Miss. 718; Mcintosh v. Ladd, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 458; Thayer v. Thayer, 14 Vt. 107.

Release by Wife.

The wife may, however, release her inchoate right of dower to her husband's alienee,246 but not to the husband himself,247 or to

Contra, Flowers v. Flowers, 89 Ga. 632, 15 S. E. 834. And see Patterson v. Patterson (Ky.) 24 S. W. 880; Brandon v. Dawson, 51 Mo. App. 237. And cf. Jenny v. Jenny, 24 Vt. 324; Mcgee v. Mcgee's Heirs, 4 Ired. (N. C.) 105.

240 Rawlings v. Adams, 7 Md. 2G; Hunkins v. Hunkins, 65 N. H. 95, 18 Atl. 655.

241 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3212; Reed v. Whitney, 7 Gray (Mass.) 533; Church v. Church, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 434; Duke v. Brandt, 51 Mo. 221; Thompson v. Thompson, 1 Jones (N. C.) 430. But see Lobdell v. Hayes, 4 Allen (Mass.) 187. But the purchase money must have been paid. Taylor v. Kearn, 68 111. 339; Greenbaum v. Austrian, 70 111. 591; Crawl v. Harrington, 33 Neb. 107, 49 N. W. 1118; Pugh v. Bell, 2 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 125.

242 1 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 450.

243 1 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 458.

244 See post, p. 407.

245 Stevens v. Smith, 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 64; Mahoney v. Young, 3 Dana (Ky.) 588. And so by statute. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3218; 1 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 346. But cf. Wilcox v. Randall, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 633; Cass v. Thompson, 1 N. H. 65.