Cain v. Cain
This text of 23 Iowa 31 (Cain v. Cain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
As to whether the provisions of a will in favor of the wife were intended to be in lieu of dower, or in addition thereto, has been the occasion of frequent adjudications. The English rule (aside from statute) requires that the will shall expressly state the provisions to be in lieu of dower, or at least (as Lord Kenyon says), “it should appear that if she took both dower and the provisions imder the will, some other part of the testator’s disposition would be defeated; or (as Lord Alvanley says), ‘ it must appear that he meant, to bar her dower,, or that what she demands is repugnant to the disposition.’ ” How far [39]*39this rule may have been modified by statute or judicial decisions in this country, we need not inquire; for, admitting it in its full force, 'this plaintiff is not entitled to dower in addition to the provisions of the will.
The case of Corriell v. Ham (2 Iowa, 552), and of Clark v. Griffith, (4 Id. 405), arose under the statute giving dower as at common law; they hold the English rule as herein recognized. "We have no occasion herein .to construe Revision, section 2435. “ The widow’s dower cannot be affected by any will of her husband if she objects thereto, and relinquishes all rights conferred upon her by the will.” .
Nor is it necessary for us to determine whether the District Court erred in rejecting the testimony offered by defendants to show the facts, circumstances and relations surrounding the testator at the time of the making of the will.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 Iowa 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cain-v-cain-iowa-1867.