By the foreclosure of a mortgage, the estate of the husband is terminated, as will be subsequently explained, and consequently, if the mortgage takes precedence of the dower right, as having been made before the marriage,6 or before the land passed to the husband, or as having been joined in by the wife, the right of dower is barred.7 But dower is not barred by foreclosure of a mortgage made by the husband after marriage, in which the wife did not join, unless, at least, her right of dower was put in issue in the foreclosure proceeding, and she was a party thereto.8 And even when dower is subordinate to the mortgage, if there is a foreclosure sale of the property after the husband's death, the widow is, under the doctrine of

6. Shope v. Schaffner, 140 111. 470, 30 N. E. 872; Carll v. Butman. 7 Me. 102; Burrall v. Bender, 61 Mich. 608, 28 N. W. 731; Rands v. Kendall, 15 Ohio, 671; Skinner v. Furnas, 82 Ore. 414, 161 Pac. 962; Boyer v. Boyer, Coldw. (Tenn.) 12.

7. Cheek v. Waldrum, 25 Ala. 152; Roan v. Holmes, 32 Fla. 295, 21 L. R. A. 180, 13 So. 339; Shope v. Schaffner, 140 111. 470, 30 N. E. 872; Kemerer v. Bournes, 53 Iowa, 172, 4 N. W. 921; Schweitzer v. Wager, 94 Ky. 458, 22 S. W. 883; Mantz v. Buchanan, 1 Md. Ch. 202; Farwell v. Cotting, 8 Allen (Mass.) 211; Brackett v. Baum, 50

N. Y. 8; Shiell v. Sloan, 22 S. C. 151.

8. Fourche River Lumber Co. v. Walker, 96 Ark. 540, 132 S. W. 451; Dillman v. Will County Bank, 138 111., 282; Mooney v. Maas, 22 Iowa, 380, 92 Am. Dec. 395; Walsh v. Wilson, 130 Mass. 124; Wade v. Miller, 32 N. J. L. 296; Lewis v. Smith, 9 N. Y. 502, 61 Am. Dec. 706; Merchants Bank v. Thomson, 55 N. Y. 7; Parmenter v. Brink-ley, 28 Ohio St. 32; Davis v. Town" send, 32 S. C. 112, 10 S. E. 837. Contra, that she is bound although no issue was raised as to dower, see Miller v. Boehme, 17 Neb. 377, 22 N. W. 797.

The dower right is also liable to be divested or impaired by the enforcement of any other lien which may have existed on the property before marriage, or before it passed to the husband;11 but it is ordinarily superior to a lien to which the property becomes subject in the hands of the husband after marriage;12 and it is consequently superior to the claims of creditors of the husband, if such claims were not made liens on the land before the marriage.13 In some states, however, the statute excludes dower in land sold under execution or judicial sale, and the effect of such provision is to give priority even to a lien accruing, by

9. Hewitt v. Cox. 55 Ark. 225 15 S. W. 1026; 17 S. W. 873; Mc-Clain v. McClain. 151 Ky. 356, Ann. Cas. 1915A 155, 151 S. W. 926, 152 Ky. 206, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 155, 153 S. W. 234; Bank of Commerce v. Owens, 31 Md. 320, 1 Am. Rep. 60; Burrall v. Bender, 61 Mich. 608; Hinchman v. Stiles, 9 N. J. Eq. 361; Titus v. Neilson, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 452; Hawley v. Bradford, 9 Paige, (N. Y.) 201, 37 Am. Dec. 390; Bailey v. Bailey, 172 N. C. 671. 90 S. E. 803; Mandel v. McClave, 46 Ohio St. 407; Miller v. Farmers' Bank, 49 S. C. 427, 61 Am. St. Rep. 821, 27 S. E. 514; Hoy v. Warner, 100 Va. 600, 42 S. E. 690; Commercial Banking & Trust Co. v. Dudley, 76 W. Va. 332, 86 S. E. 307. See statutes to this effect, 1 Stimson's Am St. Law, Sec. 3216.

10. Post Sec. 230, note 38.

11. 4 Kent, Comm. 50; Mahan v. Kimball, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 1; Eiceman v. Finch, 79 Ind. 511; Brown v. Williams, 31 Me. 422; Trustees of Poor, Queen Anne's Co. v. Pratt, 10 Md. 5; Brown v. Bronson, 35 Mich, 415; Ready v. Hamm, 46 Miss. 422; Sandford v. McLean, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 117, 23 Am. Dec. 773; Dingman v. Ding-man, 39 Ohio St. 172; Shiell v. Sloan, 22 S. C. 151.

12. Owen v. Slatter. 26 Ala. 547, 62 Am. Dec. 745; Bishop v. Boyle, 9 Ind. 169; Gone v. Cather, 23 111. 634; Grady v. McCorkle, 57 Mo. 172, 17 Am. Rep. 676; Taylor v. Fowler, 18 Ohio, 567, 51 Am. Dec. 469.

13. Tate v. Jay, 31 Ark. 576; Roan v. Holmes, 32 Fla. 295, 21 L. R. A. 180. 13 So. 399; Hargrove v. Lilly, 69 Ga. 326; Nutter v. Fouch, 86 Ind. 451; TetzReal Property.

[Sec.Sec. 223, 224 means of mortgage, judgment, or otherwise, after the marriage, if a sale is actually made thereunder during the husband's life,14 and the same is the case in any jurisdiction in which there is dower only in land of which the husband dies seised.15