151 Harrison v. Boyd, 36 Ala. 203. She cannot claim quarantine in the whole of a house held in common. Collins v. Warren, 29 Mo. 236. Except in states where such interests are made subject to dower, quarantine does not extend to leasehold estates. Voelckner v. Hudson, 1 Sandf. (N. Y.) 215; Pizzala v. Campbell, 46 Ala. 35.
152 Wallace v. Hall's Heirs, 19 Ala. 367; White v. Clarke, 7 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 641; Craige v. Morris, 25 N. J. Eq. 467. Cf. Doe d. Caillaret v. Bernard, 7 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 319. And see, contra, Stokes v. Mcallister, 2 Mo. 163.
153 Cook v. Webb, 18 Ala. 810. She need not pay the taxes on the premises. Branson v. Yancy, 1 Dev. Eq. (N. C.) 77. And see Roach v. Davidson, 3 Brev. (S. C.) 80; Bleecker v. Hennion, 23 N. J. Eq. 123.
Feited by a second marriage,154 but the rule is otherwise in this country.155
(a) Of common right, which is an assignment of a life estate in one-third by metes and bounds.
(b) Against common right, which is an assignment in some other manner by consent of the parties.
Dower consummate before assignment is not an estate,156 but only a chose in action.157 At law it is not liable for the widow's debts,158 nor can she transfer this right,159 though a transfer may be enforced in equity.160 She has no right of entry until assignment,161 nor can she bring partition.162
154 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 63. 155 Shelton v. Carrol, 16 Ala. 148.
156 Blodget v. Brent, 3 Cranch, C. C. 394, Fed. Cas. No. 1,553; Reynolds v. Mccurry, 100 111. 356; Heisen v. Heisen, 145 111. 658, 34 N. E. 597; Scott v. Howard, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 319.
157 Rayner v. Lee, 20 Mich. 384; Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483; Weaver v. Sturtevant, 12 R. I. 537; Downs v. Allen, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 652.
158 Gooch v. Atkins, 14 Mass. 378; Petty v. Malier, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 591; Waller v. Mardus, 29 Mo. 25; Blain v. Harrison, 11 ILL 384; Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483; Nason v. Alien, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 479; Pennington's Ex'rs v. Yell, 11 Ark. 212. But that it may be reached by creditors' bill, see Payne v. Becker, 87 N. Y. 153; Stewart v. Mcmartin, 5 Barb, (N. Y.) 438; Tompkins v. Fonda, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 44S; Thomas v. Simpson, 3 Pa. St. 60; Shaupe v. Shaupe, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 9; Boltz v. Stoltz, 41 Ohio St. 540; Davison v. Whittlesby, 1 Mcarthur, 163. Contra, Maxon v. Gray, 14 R. L 641.
159 Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483; Mcdonald v. Hannah, 51 Fed. 73; Blain v. Harrison, 11 111. 384; Hoots v. Graham, 23 111. 81; Jackson v. Aspell, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 411; Sutliff v. Forgey, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 89; Cox v. Jagger, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 638; Dillon, C. J., in Huston v. Seeley, 27 Iowa, 198; Parton v. Allison, 109 N. C. 674, 14 S. E. 107; Saltmarsh v. Smith, 32 Ala. 404. But she may mortgage it Ferry v. Burnell, 14 Fed. 807; Pope v. Mead, 99 N. Y. 201, 1 N. E. 671; Herr v. Herr, 90 Iowa, 538, 58 N. W. 897.
160 Strong v. Clem, 12 Ind. 37; Parton v. Allison, 109 N. C. 674,14 S. E. 107.
161 Jackson v. O'donaghy, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 247; Sheafe v. O'neil, 9 Mass. 13; Parsons, C. J., in Inhabitants of Windham v. Inhabitants of Portland, 4 Mass. 387.
162 Reynolds v. Mccurry, 100 III 358; Coles v. Coles, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 319;
Assignment of Common Right and against Common Right.
Assignment of dower of common right is where the widow's third is set out to her by metes and bounds.163 She must be given an absolute and unconditional life estate in the premises assigned.164 Assignment of common right is the method which must be adopted by the tenant when he makes the assignment without the widow's consent,165 or by the sheriff or commissioners on the order of the court.166 In assignment against common right the widow receives some other share in lieu of one-third by metes and bounds.167 This kind of assignment is valid only by consent of the parties,168 but they may agree upon a share in common, or any other method, so long as the provision for the widow is out of the lands of which she is dowable.169 A parol assignment of dower by either method is good,170 unless, as in some states, a writing or a sealed instrument is required by statute.171 If the assignment has been of common right, and subsequently a superior title is enforced against the widow's share, so that she loses it, she can call upon the other party for a new assignment;172
Brown v. Adams, 2 Whart (Pa.) 188. Cf. Jones v. Hollopeter, 10 Serg. & R, (Pa.) 326.
163 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 80; Stevens' Heirs v. Stevens, 3 Dana (Ky.) 371; Sehnebly v. Schnebly, 26 111. 116; Benner v. Evans, 3 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 454; French v. Pratt, 27 Me. 381.
164 Wentworth v. Wentworth, Cro. Eliz. 452.
165 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 80.
166 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 5S2.
167 French v. Peters, 33 Me. 396; French v. Pratt, 27 Me. 381; Marshall v. Mcpherson, 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 333; Welch v. Anderson, 28 Mo. 293; Hale v. James, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 258.
168 Jones v. Brewer, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 314; Welch v. Anderson, 28 Mo. 293.
169 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 82; Hale v. James, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 258; Marshall v. Mcpherson, 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 333; Fitzhugh v. Foote, 3 Call (Va.) 13.
170 Johnson v. Neil 4 Ala. 166; Curtis v. Hobart, 41 Me. 230; Meserve v. Meserve, 19 N. H. 240; Conant v. Little, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 189; Shattack v. Gragg, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 88.
171 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 74.
172 But she gets only one-third of what remains. French v. Peters, 33 Me. 396; Mautz v. Buchanan, 1 Md. Ch. 202; Holloman v. Holloman, 5 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 559; St. Clair v. Williams, 7 Ohio, pt 2, p. 110.
And the same right exists in favor of the heir against the widow.173 But in an assignment against common right there is no such warranty, and each one must bear any subsequent loss alone.174
54. When Value Estimated-against an heir, dower is estimated at the time of assignment; against a grantee of the husband, at the time of alienation in some states, in others at the time of assignment, not including improvements.
The widow's one-third or one-half is measured by the value of the husband's estates, not by the quantity of land. Against the husband's heirs, this value is estimated as of the time of assignment.175 If the heir improves the land before assignment, the widow has dower in the increased value.176 But in the United States improvements made by an alienee of the husband are not subject to dower.177 In some states the widow is dowable, as against such alienee, of any increased value of the land,178 while
173 Singleton's Ex'r v. Singleton's Heirs, 5 Dan. (Ky.) 87.
174 French v. Pratt, 27 Me. 381.
175 Mcgehee v. Mcgehee, 42 Miss. 747; Meclanahan v. Porter, 10 Mo. 746. It is so provided in some states by statute. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3279; 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 634; 1 Shars. & B Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 401. And see Verlander v. Harvey, 36 W. Va. 374, 15 S. E. 54.
176 Larrowe v. Beam, 10 Ohio, 498; Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 359. It is otherwise by statute in some states. 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 597; 1 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 401.
177 Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483; Powell v. Manufacturing Co., 3 Mason, 347, Fed. Cas. No. 11,356; Barney v. Frowner, 9 Ala. 901; Stookey v. Stookey, 89 III 40; Scammon v. Campbell, 75 111. 223; Wilson v. Oatman, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 223; Dashiel v. Collier, 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 601; Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 359; Ayer v. Spring, 9 Mass. 8; Johnston v. "Vandyke, 6 Mclean, 422, Fed. Cas. No. 7,426; Catlin v. Ware, 9 Mass. 218; Humphrey v. Phinney, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 484; Thompson v. Morrow, 5 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 289; Young v. Thrasher, 115 Mo. 222, 21 S. W. 1104; Morgan v. Hendrew, 102 Ala. 245, 14 South. 540.
178 Thompson v. Morrow, 5 Serg. & R. (Pa.); 289; Fritz v. Tudor, 1 Bush (Ky.) 28; Meclanahan v. Porter, 10 Mo. 746; Dunseth v. Bank, 6 Ohio, 76; Walker v. Schuyler, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 480; Powell v. Manufacturing Co., 3 Mason, 347, Fed. Cas. No. 11,356. And conversely she must bear any depredation in value. Westeott v. Campbell, 11 R. I 378; Meclanahan v. Porter,
Real.Prop.-7 in others she takes her share of the value at the time of alienation.179
55. Method Of Division-land subject to dower is divided by metes and bounds when practicable; otherwise, it is sold, and the proceeds divided.
Whenever possible, the widow's interest in the dower lands is set out to her by metes and bounds. In assigning dower the convenience and interests of all parties concerned should be considered. A widow may be given one of three parcels of land, instead of one-third of each.180 But if the several parcels have been aliened to different persons by the husband, dower must be assigned in each one.181 If only part of them have been sold, then dower is to be assigned in what remains, if sufficient, and the alienees exonerated.182 In some states the dwelling house is to be included in the widow's share,183 and, when her third does not entitle her to all of it, certain rooms may be assigned, with a right to use the halls and stairs.184 Where lands are held by the husband as a co-tenant with others, dower may be assigned in com10 Mo. 746; Braxton v. Coleman, 5 Call (Va.) 433; Sanders v. Mcmillian, 98 Ala. 144, 11 South. 750.
179 Hale v. James, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 258; Walker v. Schuyler, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 480; Guerin v. Moore, 25 Minn. 462; Tod v. Baylor, 4 Leigh (Va.) 498.
180 Jones v. Jones, Busb. (N. C.) 177; Rowland v. Carroll, 81 111. 224; Alder-son's Heirs v. Henderson, 5 W. Va. 182; 1 Stim, Am. St. Law, § 3277 B. Contra, Hardin v. Lawrence, 40 N. J. Eq. 154.
181 Coulter v. Holland, 2 Har. (Del.) 330; Cook v. Fisk, 1 Walk. (Miss.) 423; Ellicott v. Mosier, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 574; Thomas v. Hesse, 34 Mo. 13; Fosdick v. Gooding, 1 Greenl (Me.) 30; Peyton v. Jeffries, 50 I1l 143; Droste v. Hall (N. J. Ch.) 29 Atl 437.
182 2 Scrib. Dower (2d Ed.) 637; Wood v. Keyes, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 478; Lawson v. Morton, 6 Dana (Ky.) 471; Morgan v. Conn, 3 Bush (Ky.) 58; Goodrum v. Goodrum, 56 Ark. 532, 20 S. W. 353.
183 l Stim. Am. St Law, § 3277 B; 1 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 398. And see Christopher v. Christopher, 92 Tenn. 408, 21 S. W. 890.
184 White v. Story, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 543; Stewart v. Smith, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 167; Patch v. Keeler, 27 Vt 252; Symmes v. Drew, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 278; Parrish v. Parrish, 88 Va. 529, 14 S. E. 325,