34. Duncan v. Terre Haute, 85 Ind. 104; Baker v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 122 Mo. 396, 30 S. W. 301:

Gwynne v. Cincinnati, 3 Ohio, 24, 17 Am. Dec. 576; Arnold v. Buffalo R. & P. Ry. Co., 32 Pa. Super. Ct. 452; Contra, Nye v. Taunton Eranch R. Co, 113 Mass. 377.

35. Bigoness v. Hibbard, 267 111. 301, 108 N. E. 294; Fitcher v. Griffiths, 216 Mass 174. 103 N. E. 471; Bonfoey v. Bonfoey, 100 Mich. 82, 58 N. W. 620; MacKenna v. Fidelity Trust Co., 184 N. Y. 411, 77 N. E. 721, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1068, 77 N .E. 721; Atwood v. Arnold, 23 R. I. 609, 51 Atl. 216.

36. Bigoness v. Hibbard, 267 111. 301, 108 N. E. 294; Mills v.

On a sale of the land under a mortgage or other lien which takes precedence of her right of dower, according to some decisions, the inchoate right is destroyed, so as to exclude her from any share in the surplus proceeds of sale,37 though by others she is given a share therein.38 Likewise, in the case of a sale for the purpose of partition during the husband's life, it has been held that the wife of a cotenant has no right to share in the proceeds of sale,39 though there are cases in which a contrary view is suggested.40

Van Voorhies, 20 N. Y. 412; Mc-Arthur v. Franklin, 15 Ohio St. 4S5. That she has no right to be made a party to the foreclosure proceeding, see Bowden v. Had-ley, 138 Iowa, 711, 116 N. W. G89.

37. McLeod v. McLeod, 169 Ala. 654, 53 So. 834; Kauffman v. Peacock, 115 111. 212, 3 N. E. 749; Dean v. Phillips, 17 Ind. 409; Cook v. Dillon, 9 Iowa, 412; New-hall v. Lynn Five Cents Sav. Bank, 101 Mass. 428, 3 Am. Rep. 387; Elmendorff v. Lockwood, 57 N. Y. 322; Grube v. Lilienthal, 51 S. C. 442, 29 S. E. 230; George v. Hess, 48 W. Va. 534, 37 S. E. 598.

38. Cornog v. Cornog, 3 Del. Ch. 407; Ratcliffe v. Mason, 92 Ky. 190, 17 S. W. 438 (statute); Chase v. Angell, 148 Mich. 1, 118 Am. St. Rep. 568, 108 N. W. 1105; Vreeland v. Jacobus, 19 N. J. Eq. 231; Mathews v. Duryee, 3 Abb. Dec. 220, 4 Keyes, 525; Vartie v. Underwood, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 564; Unger v. Leiter, 32 Ohio St. 210; Mandel v. McClave, 46 Ohio St. 407, 5 L. R. A. 519, 15 Am. St. Rep. 627, 22 N. E. 290; DeWolf v. Murphy, 11 R. I. 630; Keith v. Trapier, 1 Bailey Eq. (S. C) 63; Thompson v. Cochran, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 72, 46 Am. Dec. 68.

As to the proper method of computing the value of the inchoate right of dower, see Gordon v. Tweedy, 74 Ala. 232, 49 Am. Rep. 813; Jackson v. Edwards, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 386, 408; Unger v. Leiter, 32 Ohio St. 210; DeWolf v. Murphy, 11 R. I. 630; Brown v. Brown, 94 S. C. 492, 78 S. E. 477; Strayer v. Long, 86 Va. 557, 10 S. E. 574.

39. Weaver v. Gregg, 6 Ohio St. 547, 67 Am. Dec. 355; Lee v. Lin-dell, 22 Mo. 262, 64 Am. Dec. 262; Reiff v. Horst, 55 Md. 42.

40. Jackson v. Edwards, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 386; Greiner v. Klein, 28 Mich. 12; Warren v. Twilley, 10 Md. 39; Jordan v. Van Epps, 85 N. Y. 427; Wood v. Price, 79 N. J. Eq. 14,.81 Atl. 664. See 1 Scribner, Dower (2d Ed.) 342 et seq.

In Whiting v. Whiting, 114 Me. 382, 96 Atl. 500, a wife, who was induced by fraud to join in her husband's conveyance, was allowed to assert a constructive trust to the value of her inchoate dower in the purchase money.

R. P.-51

Inchoate dower is for some purposes regarded as a valuable right, which the law will recognize and protect, at the instance of the wife, as when the husband fraudulently alienates his land in order to deprive her of her dower, or, by the fraudulent conduct of others, she is induced to release her right.41 In one case she has been granted an injunction against waste by an alienee of the husband.42 The relinquishment of her dower right, while still inchoate, is a valuable consideration, which will support a transfer to or contract with the wife,43 and the right is an incumbrance within a covenant against incumbrances.44 The wife has, however, it has been decided, no right which she can assert as against one holding by adverse possession against the husband.45

41. Kelly v. McGrath. 70 Ala. 75, 45 Am. Rep. 75; Buzick v. Buzick, 44 Iowa 259, 24 Am. Rep. 740; Petty v. Petty, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 215, 39 Am. Dec. 501; Purns v. Lynde, 6 Allen (Mass.) 305; Bonfoey v. Bonfoey, 100 Mich. 82, 58 N. W. 620. In re Turner v. Kuehnle, 70 N. J. Eq. 6l; Simar v. Canaday, 53 N. Y. 298, 13 Am. Rep. 523; Clifford v. Kamfife, 147 N. Y. 383, 42 N. E. 1; Thayer v. Thayer, 14 Vt. 107, 39 Am. Dec. 211; Madigan v Walsh, 22 Wis. 501.

42. Brown v. Brown. 94 S. C. 492, 78 S. E. 477. Contra, Rum-sey v. Sullivan, 166 N. Y. App. Div. 246, 150 N. Y. Supp. 287. See editorial notes, 28 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 615; 24 Yale Law Journ, p. 342; 1 Cornell Law Quart. 202; 2 Virginia Law Rev. 462.

43. Motley v. Sawyer, 38 Me. 68; Reiff v. Horst, 55 Md. 42; Flynn v. Flynn, 171 Mass. 312, 42

L. R. A. 98, 68 Am. St. Rep. 427. 50 N. E. 650; David Adler, etc., Clothing Co. v. Hellman, 55 Neb. 266, 75 N. W. 877; Nims v. Bige-low, 45 N. H. 343. In re Alexander, 53 N. J. Eq. 96, 30 Atl. 817; Singree v. Welch 32 Ohio St. 320; Harvey v. Alexander, 1 Rand. (Va.) 219, 10 Am. Dec. 68.

44. Porter v. Noyes, 2 Me. 22, 11 Am. Dec. 30; Harrington v. Murphy, 109 Mass. 299; Walker'3 Adm'r v. Deaver, 79 Mo. 664; Russ v. Perry, 49 N. H. 547; Carter v. Denman's Ex'rs 23 N. J. Law, 260; Jones v. Gardner, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 266; Johnson v. Nyce's Ex'rs, 17 Ohio 66, 49 Am. Dec. 444.

45. Miller v. Pence, 132 111. 149, 23 N. E. 1030; Paulus v. Latta, 93 Ind. 34; Baling v. Clark, 83 Iowa, 481, 50 N. W. 57; Williams v. Williams, 89 Ky. 381. 6 L. R. A. 637, 12 S. W. 760; Durham v. Angier, 20 Me. 242; Moore v. Frost, 3 N. H. 126.

Inchoate dower is not transferable by the wife, by conveyance or assignment, even though the husband join in the transfer,46 but she may release such right to one having an estate in the land, at least if the estate is freehold in character, or to one who obtains an estate by the same instrument by which the release is effected.47-48