Potter v. Wheeler

13 Mass. 504
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1816
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 13 Mass. 504 (Potter v. Wheeler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Potter v. Wheeler, 13 Mass. 504 (Mass. 1816).

Opinion

By the Court.

The demandant claims her dower in an undivided moiety, having, in the lifetime of her husband, relinquished her claim in the other moiety. The tenant pleads a partition made between the husband and his co-tenant, and claims to hold in severalty free of the claim of the demandant. It is objected to this, that it places the wife’s interest too much within the power of the husband ; and a strong case has been put, of the husband taking his whole share in wood-land, by which the wife would be deprived of all n,-e of or benefit from her dower.

* It seems to be a sufficient answer to this, that it is always in the power of one tenant in common to enforce a partition, and that the husband would be bound by it. Fraud would avoid this, as it would every act, however solemn. There seems to be no good reason, why a voluntary performance of an act, to which the party is compellable by law, should not have the same effect as if produced by compulsion.

It being an incident to an estate in common, that either tenant may be compelled to make partition, the wife of one of them, by her marriage, gains an inchoate right to her dower, subject to such a contingency, by which her interest may be increased or diminished.

Tenant's plea good.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Roberts v. Jones
30 N.E.2d 392 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Cole v. Cole
126 N.E. 752 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1920)
Swan v. Tapley
102 N.E. 916 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Dayton
1 Davis. L. Ct. Cas. 162 (Massachusetts Land Court, 1904)
O'Brien v. Mahoney
60 N.E. 493 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Updike v. Adams
48 A. 384 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1901)
Napper v. Mutual Life Insurance
53 S.W. 28 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1899)
Crocker v. Cotting
39 L.R.A. 215 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
Bumgardner v. Edwards
85 Ind. 117 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Polhemus v. Empson
27 N.J. Eq. 190 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1876)
Blossom v. Blossom
91 Mass. 254 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1864)
Rank v. Hanna
6 Ind. 20 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1854)
Colton v. Smith
28 Mass. 312 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1831)
Fosdick v. Gooding
1 Me. 30 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1820)
Colbourn v. Rossiter
2 Conn. 503 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1818)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Mass. 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-v-wheeler-mass-1816.