24. Post Sec. 230, note 46.

25. Robbins v. Kinzie, 45 111. 354.

26. Chicago Dock Co. v. Kinzie, 49 111. 289.

27. See Mobley v. Mobley, 14 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 280.

28. Co. Litt. 265; Sheppard's

Touchstone, 329. As to the persons to whom dower consummate can be released, see post Sec. 231, notes 57-63.

29. 2 Scribner, Dower, 283; Carnall v. Wilson, 21 Ark. 62, 76 Am. Dec. 351; Switzer v. Hauk, 89 Ind. 73; Keeler v. Tatnell, 23

- In favor of husband. In the absence of statutes authorizing such transactions between husband and wife, the wife cannot usually, after the marriage, bind herself by a release of her dower directly to her husband, or agree with him to relinquish it, in considerN. J. Law, 62. And see Worth-ington v. Middleton, 6 Dana (Ky.) 300.

30. McMahon v. Russell, 17 Fla. 698; Stowe v. Steele, 114 111. 382, 2 N. E. 169 (semble); Shobe v. Brinson, 148 Ind. 285, 47 X. E 625; French v. Lord, 69 Me. 537; Robinson v. Bates, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 40; Dearborn v. Taylor, 18 N. H. 153; White v. White, 16 N. J. L. 202, 31 Am. Dec. 232; Kitzmiller v. Van Rensselaer, 10 Ohio St. 63; Commercial Banking & Trust Co. v. Dudley, 76 W. Va. 332, 86 S. E. 307. See Mandel v McClave, 46 Ohio St. 407, 5 L. R. A. 519, 15 Am. St. Rep. 627, 22 N. E. 290, So, a release given by a wife to her husband's grantee was regarded as not available to one who subsequent-ly obtained the land by foreclos-ure or a mortgage given by the husband without the wife's joinder. Littlefield v. Crocker, 30 Me. 192.

31. Elmendorf v. Lockwood, 57 X. Y. 322; Boorum v. Tucker 51 X. J. Eq. 135, affirmed Hart-shorne v. Boorum, 52 X. J. Eq. 587, 33 Atl. 50; Morton v. Noble, 57 111. 176; Johnson v. Van Vel-sor, 43 Mich. 208, 5 N. W. 265; But see Hinchliffe v. Shea, 103 X. Y. 153, 8 X. E. 477.

32. Post, this section, note 49 32a. But at common law a release by way of extinguishment operated in favor of all persons, if the right sought to be extinguished was such that it could not be held or exercised by the person to whom the release was made. Litt. Sec.Sec. 479-480. Co. Litt. 279b, 280. And such would seem to be the character of an inchoate right of dower.

33. 4 Kent, Comm. 56; Martin v Martin, 22 Ala. 86; Pillow v. Wade, 31 Ark. 678; Stilson v. Stil-son, 46 Conn. 15; Butts v. Trice, 69 Ga. 74; Shane v. McNeill, 76 Iowa, 459. 41 N. W. 166; Newby v. Cox, 81 Ky. 459; Pinkham v. Pinkham, 95 Me. 71, 85 Am. St. Rep. 392, 49 Atl. 48; Ireland v. Ireland, 43 N. J. Eq. 311, 12 Atl. 184; Guidet v. Brown. 3 Abb. N. Cas. 295, 54 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 409; Temperance House v. Fowle, 20 Ore. 163; Parham v. Parham, 6 Humph. (Term.) 287; Land v. Shipp, 98 Va. 284, 50 L. R. A. 560. 36 S. E. 391.

After a divorce, the wife may release her dower to her former husband. Savage v. Crill, 19 Hun, (N. Y.) 4, affirmed 80 N. Y. 630.

34. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3243.

35. Hieser v. Sutter, 195 111. 37S. 63 N. E. 269. Mannan v. Man-nan, 154 Ind. 9, 55 N. E. 855; have been generally regarded as absolute, so that a noncompliance therewith will render the instrument ineffective as a release of dower.48

Bubier v. Roberts, 49 Me. 460; Roberts v. Walker, 82 Mo. 200: Jones v. Fleming, 104 N. Y. 418. 10 N. E. 855; Spangler v. Dukes, 39 Ohio St. 642.

36. Lively v. Paschal, 35 Ga. 218, 89 Am. Dec 282.

37. Martin v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 180 Iowa, 859, 163 N. W. 361; Loud v. Loud, 4 Bush (Ky.) 453; Randall v. Randall, 37 Mich. 563; Garbut v. Rowling, 81 Mo. 214; Dillinger's Appeal, 35 Pa. St. 357. Contra; Stephenson v. Osborne, 41 Miss. 119, 90 Am. Doc. 358; Carson v. Murray, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 483; Guidet v. Brown, 54 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 409; Chaney v. Bryan, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 589; Land v. Shipp, 98 Va. 284, 50 L. R. A. 560, 36 S. E. 391.

38. Rhoades v. Davis, 51 Mich., 306, 16 N. W. 659; Contra, Land v. Shipp, 98 Va. 284, 50 L R. A. 560, 36 S E. 391.

- Joinder in husband's conveyance. Formerly, in England, as before indicated, the only mode by which the wife could voluntarily extinguish her right of dower, except in localities where there was a custom to the contrary, was by joinder with her husband in the levy of a fine or the suffering of a recovery.40 In this country, however, while these methods were adopted to some extent, a custom arose at an early day, which has universally prevailed, of barring dower by the joinder of the wife in a deed of the land by the husband;41 and this method of barring dower is valid in cases where the conveyance is by way of mortgage, as well as when it is absolute.42 The state statutes usually provide that dower may be relinquished in this way.43

39. Hill v. Boland, 125 Md. 113, 93 Atl. 395; Redwine's Ex'r v. Redwine, 1G0 Ky. 282, 169 S. W. 8G4; Edwards v. Edwards, 267 111. 1ll, 107 N. E. 847; Friebe v. Elder, 181 Ind. 597, 103 N. E. 429: See Egger v. Egger, 225 Mo. 116, 123 S. W. 928.

40. Park, Dower, 192 et seq.; 2 Blackst. Comm. 137; Williams, Real Prop. 323; 4 Kent, Comm. 51. See Chase's Case, 1 Bland, Ch. (Md.) 227, 17 Am. Dec. 277.

41. 2 Scribner, Dower (2d Ed.) 288 et seq.; Powell v. Monson & Brimfield Mfg. Co., 3 Mason, 347, Fed. Cas. No. 11,356; Fowler v. Shearer, 7 Mass. 14; Eleimndorf v Lockwood, 57 N. Y. 323; Grove v. Todd, 41 Md. 633, 20 Am. Rep. 76. Such mode of barring dower was adopted in England in the act abolishing fines and recoveries. St. 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 74 (A. D. 1833).

42 Dundas v. Hitchcock, 12 How. (U. S.) 256, 13 L. Ed. 978;

Russell v. Umphlet, 27 Ark. 339; McMahon v Russell, 17 Fla. 698; Scanlan v. Scanlan, 134 111. 630, 25 N. E. 652; Davis v. Jenkins, 93 Ky. 253, 40 Am. St. Rep. 197, 20 S. W. 283; McCabe v. Bellows, 7 Gray (Mass.) 148, 66 Am. Dec. 467; Jones v. Bragg, 33 Mo. 337, 84 Am. Dec. 49; Glascock v. Glascock, 217 Mo. 362, 117 S. W. 67; St. Clair v. Morris, 9 Ohio, 15, 34 Am. Dec. 415; Miller v. Farmers' Dank, 49 S. C. 427, 61 Am. St. Rep. 821, 27 S. E. 514; Daly v. Willis, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 100.