Eldredge v. Forrestal
7 Mass. 253
Opinion
There is no doubt that an actual cotporeal seisin, or a right to such seisin, in the husband during the coverture, is indispensable to entitle his widow to dower; and that a legal seisin of a vested remainder is not sufficient for that purpose. As in this case there was an interposing estate for life, which was not determined until after the death of the husband, it is very clear that the tenant was not entitled to dower. The proceedings in the Probate Court are void ; and judgment must therefore be entered on the verdict.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Eldredge v. Forrestal, 7 Mass. 253 (Mass. 1811).
7 Mass. 253 (Eldredge v. Forrestal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McGuire v. Cook
135 S.W. 840 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1911)
Gray v. Whittemore
78 N.E. 422 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Oliver v. Jones
3 Ohio N.P. 129 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County, 1895)
Watson v. Watson
22 N.E. 438 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Wilmarth v. Bridges
113 Mass. 407 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1873)
Brooks v. Everett
95 Mass. 457 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1866)
Durando v. . Durando
23 N.Y. 331 (New York Court of Appeals, 1861)
Watkins v. Thornton
11 Ohio St. (N.S.) 367 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1860)
Planters' Bank of Tennessee v. Davis
31 Ala. 626 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1858)
Tayloe v. Gould
10 Barb. 388 (New York Supreme Court, 1851)
Green v. Putnam
1 Barb. 500 (New York Supreme Court, 1847)
Otis v. Parshley
10 N.H. 403 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1839)
Fisk v. Eastman
5 N.H. 240 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1830)
Dunham v. Osborn
1 Paige Ch. 634 (New York Court of Chancery, 1829)
Drew v. Munsey
1 Smith & H. 317 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1814)