An estate by curtesy may exist when the wife has an estate of inheritance, and in no other case.12 Accordingly, it p. 146, 1 Virginia Law Rev. at p. 24.

3. 1 Sharswood & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 261. See Dubs v. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149; Bruner v. Briggs, 39 Ohio St. 478; Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Neb. 520, 1 N. W. 520; Kingsley v. Smith, 14 Wis. 360.

4-7. Litt. Sec. 52; 2 BI. Comm. 126.

8. Co. Litt. 29; Shelley's Case, 1 Coke, 97; Davis v. Mason, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 503; Chew v. Commissioners of Southwark, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160.

9. Ante Sec. 118.

10. 2 Roper, Husb. & Wife 20; Sweetapple v. Bindon, 2 Vern.

536; Dodson v. Hay, 3 Brown Ch 404.

11. Houghton v. Hapgood, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 154; Robinson v. Lakeman, 28 Mo. App. 135; Jacques v. Ennis, 25 N. J. Eq. 402; Dunscomb v. Dunscomb's

Ex'rs, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 508, 7 Am. Dec. 504; Forbes v. Smith. 40 N. C. (5 Ired. Eq.) 369, 49 Am. Dec. 432; Clepper v. Livergood, 5 Watts (Pa.) 113. So in the proceeds of the deceased wife's land taken under the power of eminent domain. In re Camp 126 N. Y. 377, 27 N. E. 799.

12. Sumner v. Partridge, 2 Atk. 47; Churchill 7. Reamer, 8 Bush (Ky.) 256; Hatfield v.

R. P.-53 exists in the case of an estate tail, and, on the same principle which applies in the case of dower, it is immaterial that the estate tail for other purposes comes to an end at the wife's death, owing to the failure of issue.13

It has been decided, in a considerable number of cases, that the right to curtesy exists in favor of the husband in spite of the fact that the wife's estate has been terminated for other purposes by an executory limitation in favor of another.14 The same considerations appear to be applicable as regards the question of the husband's right in such a case as would apply to the question of the wife's dower right when the husband's estate is so terminated, a matter previously considered.15

- Equitable estates and interests. Equitable estates of inheritance have always been regarded as subject to curtesy, provided the wife has what is regarded in equity as answering to the requirement of seisin at law, the English courts adopting, in this respect, a rule different from that which they applied in the case of dower;16 and the fact that the property is limited

Sohier, 114 Mass. 48; Spencer v. O'Neill, 100 Mo. 49, 12 S. W. 1054; Mullany v. Mullany, 4 N. J. Eq. 16, 31 Am. Dec. 238; Adams v. Ross, 30 N. J. Law 505, 82 Am. Dec. 237; Graves v. True-blood, 96 N. C. 495, 1 S. E. 918; Waller v. Martin, 106 Tenn. 341, 82 Am. St. Rep. 882, 61 S. W. 341; Muse v. Friedenwald, 77 Va. 57.

13. 4 Kent, Comm. 32; Paine's Case, 8 Coke, 36a; Hay v. Mayer, 8 Watts (Pa.) 203, 34 Am. Dec. 453; Holden v. Wells, 18 R. I. 802; Northcut v. Whipp, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 65. In Vermont, curtesy is restricted to estates in fee simple. Haynes v. Bourn, 42 Vt. 686.

14. Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. & P. 652, note; Carter v. Couch, 157 Ala. 470, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 85S, 17 So. 1006; Webb v. Trustees of First Baptist Church, 90 Ky. 117, 13 S. W. 362; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280; Thornton's Ex'rs v. Krepps, 37 Pa. St. 391; McMasters v. Negley, 152 Pa. St. 303, 25 Atl. 641; Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 597; Crumley v.

Deake, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 361; Taliaferro v. Burwell, 4 Call. (Va.) S21.

15. Ante Sec. 221.

16. 1 Roper Husb. & Wife, 18; to the sole and separate use of the wife does not exclude curtesy.17

The mortgagor's interest in property subject to a mortgage-an "equity of redemption," as it is usually called-is likewise subject to curtesy.18

- Bare legal estates. If the wife has a bare legal estate, the beneficial interest in which is in another, the husband is not entitled to curtesy.19 The husband of a mortgagee has likewise no estate by curtesy, even in states where he has the legal title, he holding this merely for the purpose of making the security effective.20

- Reversions and remainders. There is no curtesy in a reversion or remainder on a particular estate of freehold, the same considerations applying as in the

Watts v. Ball, 1 P. Wms. 109, 1 Ames' Cas. Trusts, 37, and note. Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408; Hearle v. Greenbank, 3 Atk. 717: Davis v. Mason, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 503, 7 L. Ed. 679; Robinson v. Codman, 1 Sumn. 128, Fed Cas. No. 11970: Ogden v. Ogden, 60 Ark. 70, 46 Am. St. Rep. 151; Rawlings v. Adams, 7 Md. 26; Taylor v. Smith, 54 Miss. 50; Baker v. Nall, 59 Mo. 268, Alexander v. Warrance, 17 Mo. 228; Gilmore v. Burch, 7 Ore. 374, 33 Am. Rep. 710; Dubs v. Dubs. 31 Pa. St. 149; Baker v. Heiskoll, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 641. Contra, Hall v. Crabb, 56 Neb. 392, 76 N. W. 865 (statute).

17. 4 Kent, Comm. 32; Apple-ton v. Rowley, L. R. 8 Eq. 139, 1 Ames, Cas. Trusts, 381, and note; Ogden v. Ogden, 60 Ark. 70, 46 Am. St. Rep. 151, 28 S. W. 796; Luntz v. Greve, 102 Ind. 173, 26 N. E. 128; Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 138; Dugan v. Gittings, 3 Gill (Md.) 138, 43 Am. Dec. 306; Richardson v. Stodder, 100 Mass. 528; McTigue v. McTigue, 116 Mo. 138, 22 S. W. 501; Cashing v. Blake, 29 N. J. Eq. 399, 30 N. J. Eq. 689; Dubs v. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149; Ege v. Meddlar, 82 Pa. St. 86; Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. I. 383; Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710, 31 Am. Rep. 660.

18. Casborne v. Scarfe, 1 Atk. 603; Jackson v. Becktold Printing & Book Mfg. Co., 86 Ark. 591, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 454, 112 S W. 161; Hart v. Chase, 46 Conn. 207: De Camp v. Crane, 19 N. J. 166, Gatewood v. Gatewood, 75 Va. 407.

19. Chew v. Commissioners of Southwark, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160; McKee v. Jones, 6 Pa. St. 425; Norton v. McDevit, 122 N. C. 755, 30 S. E. 24; See Bennet v. Davis, 2 P. Wms. 318, and 1 Ames' Cas. 374, note.

20. 4 Kent, Comm. 32.

Real Property.

[Sec. 242 case of dower.21 This rule has been held to apply even in those states where a mere right of entry is sufficient to support curtesy, as the equivalent of the common-law seisin, since even this requirement is not-satisfied by a right to possession merely at some future time.22 In accordance with this rule, an outstanding dower estate in a third person will defeat the estate by curtesy in favor of the husband of the owner of the fee, as regards the lands assigned for dower.23 But a reversionary interest, subject to a tenancy for years, is sufficient to support curtesy, since the reversioner has seisin.24

21. Co. Litt. 29a; Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. 263, Fed. Cas. No. 13,468; Planters' Bank of Tennessee v. Davis, 31 Ala. 626: Todd v. Oviatt, 58 Conn. 174, 7 L R. A. 693, 20 Atl. 440; Parsons v. Justice, 163 Ky. 737, 174 S. W. 725; Shores v. Carley, 8 Allen (Mass.) 425; Redus v. Hayden 43 Miss. 614; Cox v. Boyce, 152 Mo. 576, 75 Am. St. Rep. 483, 54 S. W. 467; Oxford v. Benton, 36 N. H. 395; Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. 543; Collins v. Russell. 184 N. Y. 74, 112 Am. St. Rep. 569, 76 N. E. 731; Jones v. Whichard, 163 N. C. 241, 79 S. E. 503; Watkins v. Thornton, 11 Ohio St. 367; Brandmeier v. Pond Creak Coal Co. 219 Pa. St. 19, 67 Atl. 951; Reed v. Reed, 3 Head (Tenn.) 491, 75 Am. Deo. 777.

22. Todd v. Oviatt, 58 Conn. 174; Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 161 90 Am. Dec. 320; Wat-kins v. Thornton, 11 Ohio St. 367; Chew v. Commissioners of Southwark, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160.

23. Ward's Appeal 75 Conn. 598, 54 Atl. 730; ln re Cregier, 1

Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 601, 45 Am. Dec. 416; Carter v. Williams, 43 N. C. 177; Hitner v. Ege, 23 Pa. 305; Reed v. Reed, 3 Head (Tenn.) 491 75 Am. Dec. 777. But the dower must have been assigned. Mettler v. Miller, 123 111. 630, 22 N. E. 529. So there is no curtesy when there is an outstanding curtesy estate in another. Majors v. Cryts, 240 Mo. 386, 144 S. W. 769.

Occasionally a statutory provision for a life estate in favor of the husband in the wife's property has been regarded as giving him a "statutory cuitesy" for which there is no necessity of seisin, and which consequently exists in remainders as well as estates in possession. Jenkins v. Woodward Iron Co., 194 Ala. 69 So. 646; Snyder v. Jones, 99 Md. 693, 59 Atl. 118. And obviously a statute of descent in favor of a husband would prima facie operate on remainders belonging to the wife Walden v. Walden, 213 Mass. 418, 100 N. E. 649.

24. 4 Kent, Comm. 29; De curtesy.29 Occasionally, however, a statute authorizing a married woman to convey her land as if a feme sole has been regarded as enabling her to bar curtesy by her conveyance,30 and she may no doubt do so when the husband is given curtesy only in lands of which the wife dies seised.31 In so far as she is empowered to convey land limited to her sole and separate use she may no doubt bar curtesy by her conveyance of such property.32

Sec. 243]

Estates Arising From Marriage.

- Land jointly owned. If the wife holds property in common or coparcenary with others, the husband is entitled to curtesy;25 but it is otherwise in the case of a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship.26