246 Fowler v. Shearer, 7 Mass. 14; Kirk v. Dean, 2 Bin. (Pa.) 341; Chicago Dock Co. v. Kinzie, 49 111. 289; Howlett v. Dilts, 4 Ind. App. 23, 30 N. E. 313; Ortman v. Chute, 57 Minn. 452, 59 N. W. 533; Saunders v. Blythe 112 Mo. 1, 20 S. W. 319; Shinkle's Assignees v. Bristow, 95 Ky. 84, 23 S. W. 670. Cf. Stull v. Graham, 60 Ark. 461, 31 S. W. 46. If the husband's deed is avoided, her dower is restored. Robinson v. Bates, 3 Metc. (Mass.) 40; Wood-worth v. Paige, 5 Ohio St. 71; Malloney v. Horan, 49 N. Y. 1ll; Stinson v. Sumner, 9 Mass. 143; Blain v. Harrison, 11 111. 384; Morton v. Noble, 57 111. 176; Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483. But see Den v. Johnson, 18 N. J. Law, 87.

247 Carson v. Murray, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 483; Martin's Heirs v. Martin, 22 Ala. 86; Graham v. Van Wyck, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 531; Wightman v. Schleifer, a stranger.248 The release must be by deed, and the deed must contain words of grant or release,249 although in a few states a mere signing of the husband's conveyance is sufficient.250 The form of such deeds is in all cases governed by local statute.251 In many states a separate examination of the wife is required.252

Jointure-Legal and Equitable.

Legal jointure253 is a provision,254 consisting of land exclusively,255 made for the wife in lieu of dower. It must (1) take effect immediately on the husband's death; 256 (2) be an estate for at least her own life;257 (3) be to herself, and not in trust for her;258 and (4) be expressed to be in satisfaction of dower.259 But it need not be made by the husband.260 Legal jointure is a bar to dower if made before marriage, whether the wife assent or not;261 but if made during coverture she can elect to take the jointure or her dower.262 In equity any reasonable provision 263 or contract for provision 264 is good as a jointure if the intended wife assents.265 When made after marriage, there is the same right of election as in legal jointure.266 If the widow be evicted from her jointure lauds, she is let in to her dower in proportion to the amount lost.267

63 Hun, 633, 18 N. Y. Supp. 551; In re Rausch, 35 Minn. 291, 28 N. W. 920; House v. Fowle, 22 Or. 303, 29 Pac. 890. See, however, Doremus v. Doremus,

66 Hun, 111, 21 N. Y. Supp. 13; Chittock v. Chittock, 101 Mich. 367, 59 N. W. 655. But the husband may be her attorney in fact to release. Andrews, J., in Wronkow v. Oakley, 133 N. Y. 505, 31 N. E. 521.

248 Harriman v. Gray, 49 Me. 537; Reiff v. Horst, 55 Md. 42; Marvin v. Smith, 46 N. Y. 571; Bethune v. Mcdonald, 35 S. C. 88, 14 S. E. 674. But cf. Robbins v. Kinzie, 45 111. 354.

249 Powell v. Manufacturing Co., 3 Mason, 347, 459, Fed. Cas. Nos. 11,356 and 11,357; Hall v. Savage, 4 Mason, 273, Fed. Cas. No. 5,944; Lufkin v. Curtis, 13 Mass. 223; Mcfarland v. Febiger's Heirs, 7 Ohio, 194; Carter v. Goodin, 3 Ohio St. 75; Stevens v. Owen, 25 Me. 94; Leavitt v. Lamprey, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 382. Cf. Gray v. Mccune, 23 Pa. St. 447.

250 Burge v. Smith, 7 Fost. (N. H.) 332; Dustin v. Steele, Id. 431; Smith v. Handy, 16 Ohio, 192; Daly v. Willis, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 100.

251 For the statutory provisions in general, see 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, §§ 3245, 6504; 1 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 370. And see Coburn v. Herrington, 114 111. 104, 29 N. E. 478.

252 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 6501 (1); 1 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 372; 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 321; Sibley v. Johnson, 1 Mich. 380.

253 For the origin of jointure, see 2 Bl. Comm. 137; 2 Scrib. Dower, p. 367; 1 Washb. Real Prop. (2d Ed.) 325.

254 Coke says it must be a competent livelihood, but the law gives no test. Co. Litt. 36b. M'cartee v. Teller, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 511; Graham v. Graham,

67 Hun, 329, 22 N. Y. Supp. 299; Taylor v. Taylor, 144 111. 436, 33 N. E. 532. And see Brandon v. Dawson, 51 Mo. App. 237.

255 So an annuity, unless charged on lands, would not be good as a Jointure. Vance v. Vance, 21 Me. 364; Gibson v. Gibson. 15 Mass. 106; Caruth-ers v. Caruthers, 4 Brown, Ch. 500; Hastings v. Dickinson, 7 Mass. 153; M'cartee v. Teller, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 511. But see Drury v. Drury, 2 Eden, 38; Earl of Buckinghamshire v. Drury, Id. 60 But by statute in many states a settlement of personalty is a good jointure. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3242. Williams, Real Prop. (17th Am. Ed.) note 378; 1 Shars, & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 356.

256 Vance v. Vance, 21 Me. 3G4; Grogan v. Garrison, 27 Ohio St. 50; Caruth-ers v. Caruthers, 4 Brown, Ch. 500.

257 Gelzer v. Gelzer, 1 Bailey, Eq. (S. C.) 387; Vernon's Case, 4 Coke, 1. A term of years, or an estate per autre vie. will not suffice. M'cartee v. Teller, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 267. And see 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3241.

258 Co. Litt. 36b; Hervey v. Hervey, 1 Atk. 561. But now otherwise by statute in many states. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3241; 1 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 356.

259 2 Bl. Comm. 138; Vernon's Case, 4 Coke, 1; Perry v. Perryman, 19 Mo. 409; Pepper v. Thomas (Ky.) 4 S. W. 297.

260 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 404; Ashton's Case, Dyer, 228a. Contra in Maryland, by statute, 2 Code, Md. 1888, p. 1411, art. 93, § 296; 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3241.

261 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 403; M'cartee v. Teller, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 511. Cf. Taft v. Taft, 163 Mass. 467, 40 N. E. 860. In some states her assent is made necessary by statute. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3241; 1 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 356.

262 Bottomly v. Spencer, 36 Fed. 732; Vance v. Vance, 21 Me. 364; Town-send v. Townsend, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 711; Rowe v. Hamilton, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 63. For the general principle of equitable election, see Fetter, Eq. 50; Bisp. Eq. (4th Ed.) 361.

263 Tinney v. Tinney, 3 Atk. 7; Andrews v. Andrews, 8 Conn. 79. But see Caruthers v. Caruthers, 4 Brown, Ch. 500; Blackmon v. Blackmon, 16 Ala. 633; Charles v. Andrews, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 388.

264 Vincent v. Spooner, 2 Cush. (Miss.) 467; Dyke v. Kendall, 2 De Gex M. & G. 209.

265 Tisdale v. Jones, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 523; Worrell v. Forsyth, 141 111. 22, 30 N. E. 673; Logan v. Phillipps, 18 Mo. 22.

266 Garrard v. Garrard, 7 Bush (Ky.) 436.

267 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 432; Gervoyes' Case, Moore, 717. But see Beard

§ 60)