Lowry v. Steele

4 Ohio 156

• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Decided: December 15, 1829
• Status: Published

Opinion

By the Court :

To entitle Lowry to courtesy, the only requisite of which there can be any doubt is, whether he was seized during the coverture? Steele was vested in trust with an estate for seventy-five years. He was not seized of the freehold; and having but an estate for years when he entered, he was not properly possessed of the land but of the term, the possession or seizin of the land still remaining in Sophia Cooper. Woodfall’s Land, and Ten. 172; 2 Black. Com. 144; 1 Cruise, L, 64, 161. And this is not considered a seizin in law, but a constructive seizin in deed. 8 Cranch, 245. It is therefore said (Hargrave’s notes to Co. Lit. 29, a) if land is in lease for years, courtesy may be without entry, or even receipt of rents, *the possession of the lease for years being deemed the possession of the husband and wife. The case of De Grey et al. v. Richardson et al, 3 Atk. 436, was not unlike the present. Daring the coverture of Alice Sewell lands descended to her, as heir in tail general, under a settlement, and when they descended were in the possession, and so remained during her life, of tenants under leases. It was decided by Lord Hardwicke that there was such a possession of Alice Sewell as entitled her husband to courtesy. The law appears to be with the plaintiff, and there must bo judgment for him.