98. Smith's Heirs v. Smith, 5 Dana (Ky.) 179; Simonton v. Gray, 34 Me. 50; Leonard v. Leonard, 4 Mass. 533; Reilly v. Bates, 40 Mo. 468; Macknet v. Mack-net, 24 N. J. Eq. 449; McDaniel v, McDaniel's Heirs 25 N. C. 61; Heller's Appeal, 116 Pa. 534, 8 Atl. 790; Fuller v. Conrad's Adm'r, 94 Va. 233, 26 S. E. 575.

99. Co. Litt. 32a; 2 Scribner, Dower, 595; Powell v. Monson & Brimfield Mfg. Co., 3 Macon, 347, Fed. Cas.' No. 11,356; Husted's Appeal from Probate, 34 Conn. 488; Allsmiller v Freutchenicht, causes.1 Accordingly, the widow is entitled to the benefit of a general rise in the value of property in that neighborhood.2 But in this country the widow has been regarded as not entitled to the benefit of improvements made by the husband's alienee, and these are not considered in awarding dower.3

86 Ky. 198, 5 S. W. 746; Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 386; Catlin v. Ware, 9 Mass. 218, 6 Am. Dec. 56; McGehee v. McGehee, 42 Miss. 747; McClanahan v. Porter, 10 Mo. 746; Butler v. Fitzgerald, 43 Neb. 192, 27 L R. A. 252, 47 Am St. Rep. 741, 61 N. W. 640; Hale v. James, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 258, 10 Am. Dec. 328; Larrowe v. Beam, 10 Ohio, 498; Stewart v. Pearson, 4 S. 0. 4.

In case of waste by the heir, however, the widow is, it seems, entitled to maintain an action for damages. 2 Roper, Husb. & Wife, 349. See Sanders v. McMillian, 98 Ala. 149, 39 Am. St. Rep. 19, and ante Sec. 230, note 42.

1. Sanders v. McMillian, 98 Ala. 144, 18 L. R. A. 425, 39 Am. St. Rep. 19, 11 So. 750; Scam-mon v. Campbell, 75 111. 223; Smith v. Addleman, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 406; Butler v. Butler, 151 Iowa 583, 132 N. W. 63; Fritz v. Tudor, 1 Bush, (Ky.) 28; Boyd v. Carlton, 69 Me. 200, 31 Am. Rep. 268; Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 359; McClanahan v. Porter, 10 Mo. 750; Butler v. Fitzgerald, 43 Neb. 192, 27 L. R. A. 252. 47 Am. St Rep. 741, 61 N. W. 640; Dun-seth v. Bank of United States, 6 Ohio, 77. Contra, Guerin v. Moore, 25 Minn. 462; Walker v. Schuyler, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 480; Tod v. Baylor, 4 Leigh (Va.) 498.

2. Johnston v. Vandyke, C McLean, 422, Fed. Cas. No. 7,426; Powell v. Monson & Brimfield Mfg. Co., 3 Mason, 347, Fed. Cas. No. 11,356; Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483; Petition of Tomlinson, 9 Del. Ch. 446, 81 Atl. 468, 585.

3. 2 Scribner, Dower. (2d Ed.) 612; Powell v. Monson & Brim-field Mfg. Co., 3 Mason, 347, Fed. Cas. No. 11,356; Sanders v. McMillian, 98 Ala. 144, 18 L. R. A. 425, 39 Am. St. Rep. 19, 11 So. 750; Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483; Overturf v. Martin, 170 Ind. 308, 84 N. E. 531; Warner v. Trustees of Norwegian Cemetery, 139 Iowa, 115, 117;N. W. 39;

Fritz v. Tudor, 1 Bush (Ky.) 28; Hobbs v. Harvey, 16 Me. 80; Gore v. Brazier, 3 Mass. 523, 3 Am. Dec. 182; Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 359; Young v. Thrasher, 115 Mo. 222, 21 S. W. 1104; Butler v. Fitzgerald, 43 Neb. 1921, 27 L. R. A. 252, 47 Am. St. Rep. 741, 61 N. W..640; Hale v. James, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 258, 10 Am. Dec. 328; Walker v. Schuyler, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 480; Thompson v. Morrow, 5 Serg & R. (Pa.) 289, 9 Am. Dec. 358.

That a purchaser at a sale on execution is an alience within this rule, see Wood v. Morgan, 56 Ala. 397; Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483; Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 359; Ayer v. Spring, 9 Mass. 7; McClanahan v. Porter, 10 Mo. 746; Butler v. Fitzgerald, 43 Neb. 192, 47 Am. St. Rep. 741. 61 N. W 640.

The rule in England is differ ent, and there the widow has the benefit of improvements made by the husband's alienee. Doe d. Riddell v. Gwinnell, 1 Q. B. 682. See Williams v. Thomas, [1909] 1 Q. B. 713. The propriety of the distinction made by the American cases is the subject of an editorial note in 23 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 53. In some states, the time of valuation and the right to include improvements have been reguIn case part of the land is subject to a mortgage, and there is no fund, other than the land so subject, applicable to the payment of the mortgage debt, the value of the mortgaged land is, for the purpose of assigning dower, to be determined by deducting the amount of the debt, the widow being entitled to dower only in the surplus proceeds of sale, as distinct from the gross proceeds.4

- Who may assign. The tenant of the freehold, who must make the assignment, is generally the heir, devise, or alienee of the husband; but this is not necessarily so, and one who is not the actual owner of the freehold, but is merely in possession claiming title, may assign by metes and bounds.5 It may be made by an infant heir, since otherwise the widow would be delayed in obtaining her dower,6 or the guardian of the infant may make it.7

- By agreement of parties. By agreement of the widow and the owner of the land, dower may be assigned otherwise than by metes and bounds.8 Accordlated by statute. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3279; 1 Sharswood & P. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 01.

4. Piatt's Appeal, 56 Conn 572, 16 Atl. 669; Bank of Commerce v. Owens, 31 Md. 320; Burnet v. Burnet 46 N. J. Eq. 144, 18 Atl. 374; Swain v. Perine, 5 Johns Ch. (N. Y.) 489; Hawley v. Bradford, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 200, Hoy v. Varner, 100 Va. 600, 42 S. E. 690; Contra, Kling v. Ballen-tine, 40 Ohio St. 391; Shobe v. Brinson, 148 Ind. 285, 47 N. E. 625

5. Co. Litt. 35a, 357b; Cruise, Dig. tit. 6, c. 3, Sec. 3; 2 Scribner, Dower (2d Ed.) 75 et seq. The statute sometimes provides for assignment by the heir, devisee, or other person entitled to the land. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3271.

6. 2 Blackst. Comm. 136; Jones v. Brewer, Pick. (Mass.) 514; Mc-Cormick v. Taylor, 2 Ind. 336: Young v. Tarbell, 37 Me. 509. Contra, Bonner v. Peterson, 44 111. 253.

7. Robinson v. Miller, 1 Mon. (Ky.) 88; Jones v. Brewer, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 314; Young v. Tarbell, 37 Ma. 509; Boyers v. Newbanks. 2 Ind. 388. Contra, Bonner v. Peterson, 44 111. 253. At common law. a guardian in socage could not assign dower. Co. Litt. 35a.

8. Park, Dower, 262; 2 Scribner, Dower (2d Ed.) 83; Booth v. Lambert, Style, 276. But an asingly, dower may, by agreement, be assigned by giving the widow one single tract, instead of parts of several tracts;9 or a certain proportion of the rents and profits of the land;10 or a fee-simple estate in a part of the land.11

- In connection with partition proceedings. Since the widow of the sole owner of land, although having a right of dower consummate in the land, is not a cotenant with her husband's heirs or devisees,12 she cannot, in the absence of clear statutory authority, ask that the land be sold as for the purpose of partition.13 And for a like reason an heir or devisee cannot demand a partition sale of the whole property, including the widow's dower interest, and that she take dower out of the proceeds of sale.14 Her claim to dower is paramount, and the sale is subject to dower unless, at least, she consents to a sale free from dower.15 Occasionally the statute expressly provides for a sale in partition proceedings with her assent, so as to confine her dower claim to the proceeds of sale.16 A partition signment by metes and bounds, when practicable, cannot, it seems, be waived by the widow if the assignment is made by the sheriff, and not by the tenant, since the assent of the tenant is necessary. 1 Cruise, Dig. tit. 6, c. 3; Co. Litt. 32b. Hargrave's note; Park, Dower, 262

9. Park, Dower, 262; Schnebly v. Schnebly, 26 111. 116; Compton v. Pruitt, 88 Ind. 171; O'Ferrall v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, 381; Fuller v. Rust, 153 Mass. 46; French v. Pratt. 27 Me. 381.

10. Marshall v. McPherson, 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 333.

11. Prichitt v. Kirkman, 2 Tenn. Ch. 390.

12. Ante Sec. 231.

13. Liederkranz Soc. v. Beck, 8 Bush (Ky.) 597; Hull v. Hull, 26 W. Va. 1.

14. Francis v. Sandlin, 150 Ala., 583, 43 So. 829; Hamby v. Hamby, 165 Ala. 171, 51 So. 732, 138 Am. St. Rep. 23 (semble) ; Haulenbeck v. Cronkright, 23 N. J. Eq. 407; White v. White, 16 Gratt. (Va.) 264, 80 Am. Dec. 706; Aliter under particular statutes; Baggett v. Jackson, 160 N. C. 26, 76 S. E. 86; Bradford v. Stone, 20 R. I. 53

15. See Scott v. Graves, 153 Ky. 221, 154 S. W. 1084; Richardson v. Trubey, 250 111. 577, 95 N. E. 971; Grote v. Grote, 275 111. 206, 113 N. E. 967.

16. See Stein v. Stein, 80 Md.; in kind, made by judicial decree, has been decided not to affect her right of dower.17

When there is a right of dower only as regards an undivided share in land, the husband having been a cotenant and not a tenant in severalty, the widow may, it has been said, ask partition in order that she may have dower assigned.18 Elsewhere, however, it has been asserted that the widow of a cotenant is not a proper party to a proceeding by other cotenants for partition.19-21