Upon the husband's death, the dower right of the wife loses its contingent character, and becomes "consummate," as it is called. It is not, however, yet an estate, but is merely a right in action until the land in which the widow is to hold her dower is set off to her, this being; termed the "assignment of dower."49 Consequently, she has no right of entry until assignment,50 except as the statute of the particular state may give it to her.51 Nevertheless, she is entitled, it seems, at this stage, to sue to protect the land of her husband from injury by the heir or other persons.52

46. Anonymous, Cro. Jac. 151; Johnston v. Smith's Adm'r, 70 Ala. 108; Fletcher v. Shepherd, 174 111. 262, 51 N. E. 212; French v. Crosby, 61 Me. 5C2; Mason v. Mason, 140 Mass. 63, 3 N. E. 19; Reiff v. Horst, 55 Md. 47; Pen-fold v. Warner, 96 Mich. 179, 35 Am. St. Rep. 591, 55 N. W. 680; Brannock v. Magoon, 216 Mo. 722, 116 S. W. 500; Capital Circle, No. 11, Brotherhood of the Union v. Schmitt, 84 N. J. Eq. 95, 92 Atl. 596; Moore v. City of New York, 8 N. Y. 110, 59 Am. Dec. 473; Witthaus v. Schack, 105 N. Y. 332, 11 N. E. 649.

47-48. Ante Sec. 224.

49. Martin v. Evans, 163 Ala. 657. 50 So. 997; Heisen v. Heisen, 145 111. 658, 1 L. R. A. 434, 34 N. E. 597; McMahon v. Grey, 150 Mass. 289, 5 L. R. A. 748, 15 Am. St. Rep. 202, 22 N. E. 923; Ray-ner v. Lee, 20 Mich. 384; Carey v. West, 139 Mo. 146, 40 S. W. 661; Wade v. Miller, 32 N. J. L. 296; Ackman v. Harsell, 98 N. Y. 186; Weaver v. Sturtevant. 1;! R. I. 537; Coleman v. Virginia Stave & Heading Co., 112 Va 61, 70 S. E. 545.

50. Tierney v. Whitney, 2 Colo. 620; Heisen v. Heisen. 145 111. 658, 21 L. R. A. 434, 34 N. E. 597; Johnson v. Shields, 32 Me. 424; Hilleary v Hilleary's Lessee, 26 Md. 274; Hildreth v. Thompson, 16 Mass. 191; Smallwood v. Bil-derback, 16 N. J. L. 497; Jackson v. O'Donaghy, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 247; Fishel v. Browning, 145 N. C. 71, 58 S. E. 759; Evans' Lessee v. Webb 1 Yeates (Pa.) 424, 1 Am. Dec. 308; Russell v. Tenn-ant, 63 W. Va. 623, 129 Am. St. Pep. 1024. 60 S. E. 609.

That she cannot maintain trespass against one disturbing her in the possession, see Munsey v.

At law, in the absence of statutory provisions changing the rule, the widow cannot alien her right of dower consummate, so as to vest a right of action in her grantee.53 But in some cases her assignee has been allowed to sue at law in the name of the widow to recover dower,54 and, by virtue of statutes extending rights of assignment, the widow is, in some jurisdictions, able to transfer her right.55 In equity, a transHanly, 102 Me. 423, 67 Atl. 217. Distinguishing Stevens v. Stevens, 96 Ga. 374, 23 S. E. 312; Frisbee v. Town of Marshall, 122 N. C. 760, 30 S. E. 21, Contra, as based on statutory provisions.

51. Stedman v. Fortune, 5 Conn. 462; Humphrey v. Gerard, 85 Conn. 434, S3 Atl. 210; Caillaret v. Bernard, 7 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 319; Roberts v. Nelson, 86 Mo. 21; Gourley v. Kinley, 66 Pa. 270; Grant v. Parham, 15 Vt. 649.

52. Shepard v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 117 N. Y. 442, 23 N. E. 30; Harker v. Christv, 5 N. J. L. 717; Rogers v. Potter, 32 N. J. Law, 78; Delaney v. Manshum, 146 Mich. 525, 109 N. W. 1051. Compare Carey v. Buntain, 4 Bibb (Ky.) 217.

And she has been said to have a right to compensation if the land is taken for public use. French v. Lord, 69 Me. 537.

53. Wilkinson v. Brandon, 92 Ala. 530, 9 So. 187; Carnall v. Wilson, 21 Ark. 62, 76 Am. Dec. 351; Maring v. Meeker, 263 111. 136, 105 N. E. 31; Johnson v.

Shields, 32 Me. 424; Brannock v. Magoon, 216 Mo 722, 116 S. W. 500; Fuchs v. Christie, 79 N. J. L. 14, 74 Atl. 129; Jackson v. Vander-heyden, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 167, 8 Am. Dec. 378; Cox v. Jagger, 2 Cow (N. Y.) 638, 14 Am. Dec. 522; Parton v. Allison, 109 N. C. 674, 14 S. E. 107; Miller v. Woodman, 14 Ohio, 518; Byrne v. Kernals, 55 Okla. 573, 155 Pac. 587; Ritt v. Dodge, 20 R. I. 133, 37 Atl. 810

54. McMahon v. Gray, 15C Mass. 291, 5 L. R. A. 748, 15 Am. St. Rep. 202, 22 N. E. 923; Robie v. Flanders, 33 N. H. 524; Lamar v. Scott, 4 Rich. Law (S. C.) 516.

55. Beauchamp v. Bertig, 90 Ark. 351, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 659, 119 S. W. 75; Strong v. Clem, 12 Ind. 37, 74 Am. Dec. 200; Dobber-stein v. Murphy, 64 Minn. 129, 66 N. W. 204: Carey v. West, 139 Mo. 146, 40 S. W. 661: Serry v. Curry, 26 Neb. 353, 42 N. W. 97; Payne v. Becker, 87 N. Y. 153; Baer v. Ballingall, 37 Ore. 416, 61 Pac. 852; Tucker v. Tucker, 100 Tenn 310, 45 S. W. 344.

Fer by her of her right to dower is generally recognized and protected.56

The widow may at any time release her right of dower.57 This she can not do in favor of one who has no estate in the land, since an attempted release in favor of a stranger is not a release but a mere assignment or transfer, which, as we have just seen, is ordinarily invalid at law. The cases do not clearly indicate just what classes of persons may take a release from the widow. It has been variously stated that the release of dower may be made to the terre tenant,58 to the person holding the legal title,59 to the owner of the fee,60 to the person having the next estate of inheritance,61 to a person having an independent interest,62 to the person in possession.63 According to the common law rules, a release by way of extinguishment of a right, and such appears to be the nature of a release of dower consummate, operated in favor not only of the person to whom it was made, but also in favor of persons in privity with him. For instance, if made to a particular tenant, it operated in favor of the reversioner or re56. 2 Scribner, Dower 45; Reeves v. Brooks, 80 Ala. 26; Weaver v. Rush, 62 Ark. 51, 34 S. W. 33; Davison v. Whittlesey, 1 MacArthur, (D. C.) 163; Strong v. Clem, 12 Ind. 37, 74 Am. Dec. 200; McMahon v. Gray, 150 Mass. 289, 5 L. R. A. 748, 15 Am. St. Rep. 202, 22 N. E. 923; French v. McAndrew. 61 Miss. 187; Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Ship-man, 119 N. Y. 324, 24 N. E. 177; Potter v. Everitt, 42 N. C. 152.

57. 2 Scribner, Dower, 314; Carnall v. Wilson, 21 Ark. 62, 76 Am. Dec. 351; Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483; Sloniger v. Sloniger, 161 111. 270, 43 N. E. 1111; Saunders v. Blythe, 112 Mo. 1, 20 S. W.

319; Elmendorf v. Lockwood, 57 N. Y. 322.

58. Park, Dower, 212; Wilkinson v. Brandon, 92 Ala. 530, 9 So. 187; Ritt v. Dodge, 20 R. I. 133, 37 Atl. 810.

59. Carnall v. Wilson, 21 Ark. 62, 76 Am. Dec. 351; Byrne v. Kernals, 55 Okla. 573, 155 Pac. 587.

60. Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483; Sloniger v. Sloniger, 161 111. 270, 43 N. E. 1111.

61. Miller v. Woodman, 14 Ohio, 518.

62. Elmendorf v. Lockwood, 57 N. Y. 322.

63. Moore v. Harris, 91 Mo. 616, 4 S. W. 439.

Mainderman, and if made to a reversioner or remainderman, it operated in favor of the particular tenant.63a And if a release was made by way of extinguishment of a right to a person who could not himself assert the right, the release operated in favor of all persons.63b Applying these rules, it appears to. DC immaterial whether a release of dower consummate is made to a particular tenant or to one having a reversion and remainder, and to whichever it is made it would appear to enure to the benefit of all persons interested in the land.

Before the assignment of dower, the widow's dower right is ordinarily not liable to execution under a judgment against her.64 In equity, however, it is usually regarded as an interest which may be reached by her creditors.65

Since the right of dower is superior to the claims of creditors of the husband,66 it is not ordinarily affected by a sale of the land made after the husband's death, by his personal representative or under order of court, for the purpose of paying his debts.67

63a. Litt. Sec.Sec. 453, 470, Co. Litt. 267b; Sheppard's Touchstone, 335.

63b. Litt. Sec.Sec. 479, 480; Co. Litt. 279b, 280.

64. Pennington v. Yell, 11 Ark 212, 52 Am. Dec. 262; Newman v. Willetts, 48 111. 534; Rausch v. Moore, 48 Iowa, 611, 30 Am. Rep. 412; Shield's Heirs v. Batts 5 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 12; Harper v. Clayton, 84 Md. 346, 35 L. R. A. 211; 57 Am. St. Rep. 407, 35 Atl. 1083; McMahon v. Gray, 150 Mass. 289, 5 L. R. A. 748, 15 Am. St. Rep. 202, 22 N E. 923; Ligon v. Spencer, 58 Miss. 37; Waller v. Mardus, 29 Mo. 25; Aikman v. Harsell, 98 N. Y. 186; Baer v. Ballingall, 37 Ore. 416, 61 Pac. 852; Maxon v. Cray, 14 R. I. 641; Contra, Greathead's

Appeal 42 Conn .374.

65. Davison v. Whittlesey, 1 MacArthur (D. C.) 163; Petefish v. Buck, 56 111. App. 149; McMahon v. Gray, 150 Mass. 291, 5 L. R. A. 748, 15 Am. St. Rep. 202, 22 N. E. 923; Tenbrook v. Jessup, 60 N. J. Eq. 234, 46 Atl. 516; Tompkins v. Fonda, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 4448, Payne v. Becker, 87 N. Y. 153; Boltz v. Boltz, 41 Ohio St. 540: Baer v. Ballingall, 37 Ore. 416; Contra, Harper v. Clayton, 84 Md. 346, 35 L. R. A. 211, 57 Am. St. Rep. 407, 35 Atl 1083; Moxon v. Gray. 14 R. I. 641; Huddleton. v. Miller, 81 W. Va. 357, 94 S. E. 538 (semble).

66. Ante Sec. 222, note 13.

67. Webb v. Smith, 40 Ark. 17;

Sec. 232 ] or, in some cases, a right of alternate occupation and enjoyment.78 And the statute frequently contains a provision to this effect.79