61. Stokes v. Pillow, 64 Ark 1, 40 S. W. 580; In re Franke's Estate, 97 Iowa, 704, 66 N. W. 918; Bull v. Church, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 206; Church v. Bull, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 430, 43 Am. Dec. 754; Lewis Smith, 9 N. Y. 502, 61 Am. Dec. 706; Baxter v. Bowyer, 19 Ohio, 490. Contra, Hamilton v. Buck-waiter, 2 Yeates (Pa.) 289, 1 Am. Dec. 350. The question arises generally in case of the widow's remarriage, or in case the statute gives the widow a fee-simple estate in place of the life estate of commen-law dower.

62. 1 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 500; Birmingham v. Kirwan, 2 Schoales & L. 444; Cowan v. Allen, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 292; Adsit v. Adsit, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 448, 7 Am. Deo. 539. But see White v. White, 16 N. J. Law, 211, 31 Am. Dec. 232.

63. Gibon v. Gibson, 1 Drew. 42, 17 Eng. Law & Eq. 353; Kin-sey v. Woodward, 3 Har. (Del.) 459; Konvalinka v. Schlegel, 104 N. Y. 125, 58 Am. Rep. 494, 9 N. E. 868; Wood v. Wood, 5 Paige (N. Y.) 596, 28 Am. Dec. 451; Hall v. Hall, 8 R.ch. Law S. C.) 407, 64 Am. Dec. 758.

64. Birmingham v. Kirwan, 2 Schoales & L. 444; Hall v. Hill, 1 Dru. & War. 94; Tobias v. Ketcha devise to the widow of equal shares with others has been held to show an intention to exclude dower.65

- Election by widow. In case there is a testamentary provision intended in lieu of dower, or in case the statute debars the widow from claiming both dower and the testamentary provision in her favor, as it frequently does, it is for the widow to elect whether she will take the one or the other.66

In order that the election be binding, it must be made with full knowledge on the widow's part of the situation of her husband's estate, and the relative values of her dower interest and the testamentary provision;68 and an election made by her without such knowledge may be retracted, provided she restore what she may have received thereby.67 In one case ignorance of the right to dower was held not to invalidate the election, this being ignorance of the law, which is not excused,68 but there are other cases apparently not in accord with this view.69 The right of election is personal to the um, 32 N. Y. 319; Matter of Gorden, 172 N. Y. 25, 92 Am. St. Rep. 689, 64 N E. 753.

65. Chalmers v. Storil, 2 Ves. & B. 222; Colgate's Ex'r v. Colgate, 23 N. J. Eq. 372; Bailey v. Boyce, 4 Strob. Eq. (S. C.) 84. And see Durfee's Petition, 14 R. I. 47; Higginbotham v. Cornwell, 8 Grat. (Va.) 83. 56 Am. Dec. 130. This line of decisions has, however, been criticised. 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. Eq. 531; 1 Pome-roy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 502. See In re Hatch's Estate, 62 Vt. 300.

66. United States v. Duncan, 4 McLean 99, Fed. Cas. No. 15,002; Smith's Estate, 108 Cal. 115, 40 Pac. 1073; Stone v. Vandermark. 146 111. 312, 34 N. E. 150; Milli-kin v. Welliver, 37 Ohio St. 460;

Woodburn's Estate, 138 Pa. St. 606, 21 Am. St. Rep. 932, 21 Atl. 16; Waggoner v. Waggoner 111 Va. 325, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 644, 68 S. E. 990.

67. Steele v. Steele's Adm'r, 64 Ala. 438. 38 Am. Rep. 15; Dabney v. Bailey, 42 Ga. 521; State v. Picbate Court, 129 Minn. 442 L. R. A. 1915E, 815, 152 N. W. 845; Macknet v. Macknet, 29 N. J. Eq. 54; Simonton v. Houston, 78 X. C 408.

68. Light v. Light, 21 Pa. St 407.

69. See Petition of McFarlin, 9 Del. Ch. 430, 75 Atl. 281; Cow-drey v. Hitchcock 103 111. 262; Evans Appeal, 51 Conn. 435: Macknet v. Macknet, 29 X. J. Eq. 54; Woodburn's Estate, 138 Pa.

R. P.-50

Real Property.

[Sec. 225 widow, and consequently cannot be exercised by her representatives after her death,70 nor in behalf of her creditors.71 In case the widow is insane her guardian or committee cannot make an election on her behalf, except with the approval of the chancery or probate court.72

The statutory provisions in regard to election are usually to the effect that in case of a failure to elect, the widow takes under the will,73 though occasionally they require her consent to take under the will in order that she may be regarded as so taking, she having dower in the absence of such consent.74 In the absence of a specific provision in this regard it has occasionally been presumed that the widow, not declaring any election, takes dower or the benefit of the testamentary pro606, 21 Am. St. Rep. 932, 21 Atl. 16; Spread v. Morgan, 11 H. L. Cas. 602; Sopwith v. Maughan, 30 Beav. 235.

70. Harding v. Harding, 140 Ky. 277, 130 S. W. 1098; Boone's Representatives v. Boone, 3 Har. & McH. (Md.) 95; Sherman v. Newton, 6 Gray (Mass.) 307, Nordquist's Estate v. Sahlborn, 114 Minn. 329, 131 N. W. 323; Fergus v. Schiable, 91 Neb. 180, 135 N. W. 448; Crozier's Appeal, 90 Pa. St. 384, 35 Am. Rep. 666; In re McClintock's Estate, 240 Pa. St. 543. 87 Atl. 703.

71. Deutsch v. Rohlfing, 22 Colo. App. 543, 126 Pac. 1128; In re Fleming's Estate, 217 Pa. 610, 11 L. R. A. (N. SO 379, 66 Atl. 874.

72. Heavenridge v. Nelson, 56 Ind. 90; Pinkerton v. Sargent, 102 Mass. 568; Andrews v. Bassett, 92 Mich. 449, 17 L. R. A. 296, 52 N. W. 743; Hardy v. Richards, 98 Miss. 625, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.)

1210 54 So. 76; Penhallow v. Kimball, 61 N. H. 596; Kennedy v. Johnston, 65 Pa. St 451 , 3 Am. Rep. 650; Wright v. West, 2 Lea, (Tenn.) 78; Van Steenwyck v. Washburn, 59 Wis. 483. 48 Am. Rep. 532, 17 N. W. 289. Compare Brown v. Hodgedon, 31 Me. 65; Young v. Boardman, 97 Mo. 181, 10 S. W. 48.

73. 1 Stimson' Am. St. Law, Sec.Sec. 3265-3267; Cowdrey v. Hitchcock, 103 111. 262, 270; Whitesell v. Strickler, 167 Ind. 602, 78, N. E. 845; Thorpe v. Lyones, 160 Iowa, 415, 142 N. W. 82; Smith v. Perkins, 148 Ky. 387, 146 S. W. 758; Moore v. Gordon, 85 N. J. Eq. 150, 95 Atl. 983; Akin v. Kellogg, 119 N. Y. 441, 23 N. C. 1046; Kennedy v. Johnston, 65 Pa. 451.

74. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3266; Kierulff v. Harlan, 150 Iowa, 671, 130 Is. W. 789; Arnold v. Livingston, 15/ Iowa 677, 139 N. W. 927; O'Brien v. Knotts, 165 Ind. 308, 75 N. E. 594.

Sec. 225 ] vision accordingly as the one or the other may be most advantageous to her.75 but it may also, apart from statute, be implied from the acts of the widow. No general rule as to what acts on her part constitute an election can be stated, but generally her actual receipt of or entry upon the property given her by the will, with full knowledge of the facts, and retention and enjoyment thereof for a considerable time, will be construed as an acceptance of the testamentary provision.79 In some states, the stat75. Johnson v. Connecticut Bank, 21 Conn. 148; Merrill v. Emery, 10 Pick, (Mass ) 507; Doty v. Hendrix, 16 N. Y. Supp. 284.