A widow may be estopped to claim dower by covenants of warranty,273 or by her conduct, as in inducing a purchaser to take the land, representing it free from dower.274

2 Iowa, 551; Cain v. Cain, 23 Iowa, 31; Tooke v. Hardeman, 7 Ga. 20; Helme v. Strater, 52 N. J. Eq. 591, 30 Atl. 333; Stewart v. Stewart, 31 N. J. Eq. 398; Bannister v. Bannister, 37 S. C. 529, 16 S. E. 612. In some states a devise is presumed to be in lieu of dower, unless the contrary appears. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3244.

270 Stehlin v. Stehlin, 67 Hun, 110, 22 N. Y. Supp. 40; Sanford v. Jackson, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 266; Brown v. Caldwell, 1 Speers, Eq. (S. C.) 322; Cunningham v. Shannon, 4 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 135; Tooke v. Hardeman, 7 Ga. 20; Lord v. Lord, 23 Conn. 327; Cornell v. Ham, 2 Iowa, 552; Tobias v. Ketchum, 32 N. Y. 319; Lasher v. Lasher, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 106; In re Blaney's Estate, 73 Iowa 113, 34 N. W. 768; Mcgowen v. Baldwin, 46 Minn. 477, 49 N. W. 251; Hall v. Smith, 103 Mo. 289, 15 S. W. 621; Sumerel v. Sumerel, 34 S. C. 85, 12 S. E. 932; Rivers v. Gooding (S. C.) 21 S. E. 310; Carper v. Crowl, 149 111. 465, 36 N. E. 1040; Kelley v. Ball (Ky.) 19 S. W. 581; Richards v. Richards, 90 Iowa. 606, 58 N. W. 926; Bare v. Bare (Iowa) 59 N. W. 20; Parker v. Hayden, 84 Iowa, 493, 51 N. W. 248; Nelson v. Pomeroy, 64 Conn. 257, 29 Atl. 534; Schorr v. Etling, 124 Mo. 42, 27 S. W. 395.

271 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3264. Cf. Andrews v. Bassett, 92 Mich. 449, 52 N. W. 743; Payne v. Payne, 119 Mo. 174, 24 S. W. 781; Ford v. Ford, 88 Wis. 122, 59 N. W. 464; Draper v. Morris, 137 Ind. 169, 36 N. E. 714; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 89 Iowa, 388, 56 N. W. 517.

272 venable v. Railway Co. (Mo.) 19 S. W. 45. Cf. Whited v. Pearson, 90 Iowa, 488, 58 N. W. 32. But see Godwin v. King, 31 Fla. 525, 13 South. 108.

273 This may be by her own covenants, 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 261; Elmen-dorf v. Lockwood, .57 N. Y. 322; Mckee v. Brown, 43 111. 130; Rosenthal v. Mayhugh, 33 Ohio St. 155; or by those of her ancestor, 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 264; Torrey v. Minor, 1 Smedes & M. Ch. (Miss.) 489; Russ v. Perry, 49 N. H. 547.

274 Deshler v. Beery, 4 Dall. (Pa.) 300; Dongrey v. Topping, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 94; Smiley v. Wright, 2 Ohio, 506; Sweaney v. Mallory, 62 Mo. 485; Magee v. Mellon, 23 Miss. 585; Cf. Heisen v. Heisen, 145 111. 658, 34 N. E. 597; Boorum v. Tucker, 51 N. J. Eq. 135, 26 Atl. 456; Mecreary v. Lewis, 114 Mo.

§ 60)

Statute of Limitations and Laches.

Adverse possession before the husband's death has no effect upon the dower right.275 In several states it is provided by statute that the widow must bring action for her dower within a certain time, if at all.276 In some states, too, the general statutes of limitation are held to apply to dower, though it is not expressly included.277 In other states, the contrary is held.278 But in equity the widow's laches will bar her right.279

Waste. In several states dower is forfeited for waste.280

582, 21 S. W. 855; Whiteaker v. Belt, 25 Or. 490, 36 Pac. 534. But see Mc-creery v. Davis (S. C.) 22 S. E. 178.

275 Durham v. Angier, 20 Me. 242; Hart v. Mccollum, 28 Ga. 478; Moore v. Frost, 3 N. H. 126; Taylor v. Lawrence, 148 111. 388, 36 N. E. 74; Boling v. Clark, S3 Iowa, 481, 50 N. W. 57.

276 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3271. And see Elyton Land Co. v. Denny, 96 Ala. 336, 11 South. 218; Hastings v. Mace, 157 Mass. 499, 32 N. E. 668; O'gara v. Neylon, 161 Mass. 140, 36 N. E. 743.

277 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 559; Owen v. Peacock, 38 111. 33; Whiting v. Nicholl, 46 111. 230; Proctor v. Bigelow, 38 Mich. 282; Care v. Keller, 77 Pa. St 487; Tuttle v. Willson, 10 Ohio, 24; Moody v. Harper, 38 Miss. 599; Tor-rey v. Minor, 1 Smedes & M. Ch. (Miss.) 489; Carmichael v. Carmichael, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 96; Kinsolving v. Pierce, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 782; Null v. Howell, 111 Mo. 273, 20 S. W. 24; Conover v. Wright, 6 N. J. Eq. 613; Berrien v. Couover, 16 N. J. Law, 107. But the statute is held not to begin to run until there is a denial of the widow's right. Rice v. Nelson, 27 Iowa, 148. And see Hart v. Randolph, 142 111. 521, 32 N. E. 517.

278 Jones v. Powell, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 194; Burt v. Sheep Co., 10 Mont 571, 27 Pac. 399; Campbell v. Murphy, 2 Jones, Eq. (N. C.) 357; Spencer v. Weston, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.) 213; Ralls v. Hughes, 1 Dana (Ky.) 407; Chapman v. Schroeder, 10 Ga. 321; Spencer v. Weston, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.) 213; Chew v. Farmers' Bank, 2 Md. Ch. 231.

279 Tuttle v. Willson, 10 Ohio, 24; Barksdale v. Garrett, 64 Ala. 277; Ralls v. Hughes, 1 Dana (Ky.) 407; Steiger's Adm'r v. Hillen, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 121; Chew v. Farmers' Bank, 9 Gill (Md.) 361; Kiddall v. Trimble, 1 Md. Ch. 143.

280 See 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3231 B, C. But see Willey v. Laraway, 64 Vt 559, 25 Atl. 436.

Same - statutory Changes

61. Dower, as it existed at common law, has been abolished in some states, and in others largely modified by statute.

In some states, dower has been abolished by statute. In the others, the common-law estate has been modified in many particulars.281 These statutory changes have been already considered in connection with the subjects to which they apply.