At common law, equitable estates are not subject to dower;115 but the rule has been changed in many states by statute.116 Dower attaches to estates executed by the statute of uses.117 In either case, the estate must be of the same quantity as required for legal estates;118 and, if the husband is a bare trustee of the legal title, his wife has no dower.119
Same - Mortgages.
The widow of a mortgagee has no dower in the mortgaged premises unless the estate has become absolute by foreclosure.120 Except as changed by statute,121 the widow of one who has given a mortgage during coverture in which she has not joined has dower out of the whole estate;122 but, when she has joined in the mortgage,123 or it was executed by the husband before marriage,124
115 Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 P. Wms. 229; Blakeney v. Ferguson, 20 Ark. 547; Gully v. Ray, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 107; Steele v. Carroll, 12 Pet. 201; Williams v. Barrett, 2 Cranch, C. C. 673, Fed. Cas. No. 17,714; Hamlin v. Hamlin, 19 Me. 141; Bottomley v. Fairfax, Prec Ch. 336; Mayburry v. Brien, 15 Pet 21; Crawl v. Harrington, 33 Neb. 107, 49 N. W. 1118.
116 l Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3212; 1 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 312; 1 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 401; 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law. 895.
117 See post, p. 253; 1 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 385; Robison v. Codman, 1 Sumn. 121, Fed. Cas. No. 11,970.
118 Davenport v. Farrar. 2 111. 314; Stroup v. Stroup, 140 Ind. 179, 39 N. E. 864. And see Tink v. Walker, 148 111. 234, 35 N. E. 765. Contra, Phelps v. Phelps, 143 N. Y. 197, 38 N. E. 280.
119 Robison v. Codman, 1 Sumn. 121, Fed. Cas. 11,970; De Rush v. Brown, 8 Ohio, 412; Bartlett v. Gouge, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 152; Cowman v. Hall, 3 Gill & J. (Md.) 398; Cooper v. Whitney, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 95; Ragsdale v. O'day, 1 Mo. App. Rep'r, 363; Noel v. Jevon, Freem. Ch. 43.
120 Foster v. Dwinel, 49 Me. 44; Crittenden v. Johnson, 11 Ark. 94; Reed v. Shepley, 6 Vt. 602; Waller v. Waller's Adm'r, 33 Grat. (Va.) 83; Weir v. Tate, 4 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 264; Cooper v. Whitney, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 95.
121 1 Stim. Am. St. Law. § 3213.
122 Wedge v. Moore, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 8.
123 Cox v. Garst, 105 111. 342; Smith v. Eustis, 7 Greenl. (Me.) 41; Mantz v. Buchanan, 1 Md. Ch. 202; Glenn v. Clark, 53 Md. 580; State Bank v. Hin-ton, 21 Ohio St. 509; Schweitzer v. Wagner (Ky.) 22 S. W. 883.
124 Carll v. Batman, 7 Me. 102; Holbrook v. Finney, 4 Mass. 566; Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 618; Heth v. Cocke, 1 Ra.nd. (Va.) 344. But see Shape v. Schaffner, 140 111. 470, 30 N. E. 872.
She takes her dower subject to the mortgage;125 and if the mortgage is foreclosed either before or after the husband's death, she has dower in the surplus proceeds of the sale.126 The widow has a right to have the mortgage paid off out of the husband's personal estate.127 The common-law rule not allowing dower in equi125 Mantz v. Buchanan, 1 Md. Ch. 202; Holmes v. Book, 1 Ohio N. P. 58. But not when a grantee has assumed the mortgage, she not joining in the conveyance to him. Mccabe v. Swap, 14 Allen (Mass.) 1S8. Dower is also subject to a vendor's lien for the purchase price. Williams v. Woods, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 40S; Crane v. Palmer, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 120; Mcclure v. Harris, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 261; Ellicott v. Welch, 2 Bland (Md.) 242; Warner v. Van Alstyne, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 513; Johnson v. Cantrell 92 Ky. 59, 17 S. W. 206. Or a judgment recovered against the husband before marriage, where a judgment is a lien. Robbins v. Bobbins, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 174; Trustees, etc., of Queen Amies Co. v. Pratt, 10 Md. 5; Brown v. Williams, 31 Me. 403; Sandford v. Mclean, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 117. But see Ingram v. Morris, 4 Har. (Del) 111. Or a charge created by a testator on lands devised to the husband. Shiell v. Sloan, 22 S. C. 151. But dower is superior to a mechanic's lien for buildings on the husband's land. Bishop v. Boyle, 9 Ind. 169; Van Vronker v. Eastman, 7 Mete (Mass.) 157; Shaeffer v. Weed, 3 Gilman (III.) 511; Pifer v. Ward, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 252. Contra, Nazareth Literary & Benevolent Institute v. Lowe, 1 B. Mon. (Ky.) 257.
126 Unger v. Leiter, 32 Ohio St 210; Ketchum v. Shaw, 28 Ohio St 503; Titus v. Neilson, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 452; Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, 2 N. J. Eq. 349; Hawiey v. Bradford, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 200; Thompson v. Cochran, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 72; Mathews v. Duryee, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 69; Culver v. Harper, 27 Ohio St 464; Vreeland v. Jacobus, 19 N. J. Eq. 231; Jennison v. Hap-good, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 345. When foreclosure occurs before the death of the husband, the wife's right in the surplus will be secured to her by its investment Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 618; Vartie v. Underwood, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 561; De Wolf v. Murphy, 11 R. I. 630; Vreeland v. Jacobus, 19 N. J. Eq. 231. Contra, Newhall v. Bank, 101 Mass. 428. In certain states this right is given by statute. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3216.
127 Hawley v. Bradford, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 200; Jennison v. Hapgood, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 345; Henagan v. Harllee, 10 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 285; Caroon v. Cooper, 63 N. C. 386; Mantz v. Buchanan, 1 Md. Ch. 202. Contra, Peckham v. Had-wen, 8 R. I. 160. The right does not exist against creditors, Creecy v. Pearce, 69 N. C. 67; Rossiter v. Cossit 15 N. H. 38; nor when the mortgage was assumed by the husband, Campbell v. Campbell, 30 N. J. Eq. 415. The right is given by statute in Vermont R. L. 1880, § 2218; 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3214. Where the husband dies seised of the equity of redemption, the widow may require redemption out of the assets. King v. King, 100 Mass. 224; Mathewson v. Smith, 1 R. I. 22; Henagan v. Harllee, 10 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 285.
Table estates does not hold in the United States as to equities of redemption.128 Therefore the widow has a right to redeem 129 by contributing her share of the mortgage debt.130 If the holder of the equity of redemption does not redeem, she can redeem from the mortgagee only by paying off the whole incumbrance.131
Estates in Expectancy132 -Dower out of Dower.
When the husband has only a remainder or a reversion after an existing freehold estate, there is no dower, because he is not seised.133 Of course, if the preceding estate determines during
128 Manning v. Laboree, 33 Me. 343; Walker v. Griswold, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 41G; Hinehman v. Stiles, 9 N. J. Eq. 361; Smith v. Eustis, 7 Me. 41; Eaton v. Simonds, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 98; Burrall v. Bender, 61 Mich. 608, 28 N. W. 731; Whitehead v. Middleton, 2 How. (Miss.) 692; Heth v. Cocke, 1 Rand. (Va.) 344; Woods v. Wallace, 30 N. H. 384; Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 482; Roan v. Holmes, 32 Fla. 295, 13 South. 339.
129 Davis v. Wetherell, 13 Allen (Mass.) 60. The right extends to mortgages by the husband before marriage, Wheeler v. Morris, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 524; Coles v. Coles, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 319; and to purchase-money mortgages, Mills v. Van Voorhies, 20 N. Y. 412.
130 Noffts v. Koss, 29 Bl. App. 301; Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 482; Bell v. Mayor, etc, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 49; Cox v. Garst, 105 111. 342; Niles v. Nye, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 135; Gibson v. Crehore, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 146; Woods v. Wallace, 30 N. H. 384; Cass v. Martin, 6 N. H. 25; Richardson v. Skolfleld, 45 Me. 386; Simonton v. Gray, 34 Me. 50. But see Shope v. Schaffner, 140 111. 470, 30 N. E. 872. For the method of computing his share, see Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 482; Gibson v. Crehore, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 146. When the mortgage is paid by the husband or by any other person in his place, the mortgage is extinguished, so that the widow is not required to contribute. Bolton v. Ballard, 13 Mass. 227; Snow v. Stevens, 15 Mass. 278; Barker v. Parker, 17 Mass. 564; Hildreth v. Jones, 13 Mass. 525; Jennison v. Hapgood, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 345; Hastings v. Stevens, 9 Fost (N. H.) 564; Young v. Tar-bell, 37 Me. 509; Mathewson v. Smith, 1 R. I. 22; Walker v. Griswold, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 416; Hobbs v. Harvey, 16 Me. 80; Smith v. Stanley, 37 Me. 11; Run-yan v. Stewart, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 537; Harrison v. Eldridge, 7 N. J. Law, 392. Cf. Mcarthur v. Porter, 1 Ohio, 99.
131 Wheeler v. Morris, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 524; Peabody v. Patten, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 517; Mccabe v. Bellows, 7 Gray (Mass.) 148; Van Duyne v. Thayre, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 233.
132 See post, p. 278.
133 Durando v. Durando, 23 N. Y. 331; Green 1. Putnam, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 500; Apple v. Apple, 1 Head (Tenn.) 348; Cocke's Ex'r v. Philips, 12 Leigh (Va.) 248; Gardner v. Greene, 5 R. I. 104; Eldredge v. Torrestal, 7 Mass. 253; coverture, and the husband is let into possession, dower attaches.134 Where the intervening estate is a mere chattel interest, such as a term of years, dower attaches because the husband is seised.135 The exclusion of dower from estates in expectancy gives rise to the rule that there can be no dower out of dower. For instance, lands descend or are devised 136 to a son, subject to a right of dower in his mother. If the son dies before the mother, his wife cannot have dower out of the lands assigned as the mother's dower.137 If the junior widow's dower is first assigned, her right is only suspended by a subsequent assignment to the mother; and, if the mother dies first, the son's widow may re-enter upon the part taken from her.138