Ritt v. Dodge

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Ritt v. Dodge

37 A. 810, 20 R.I. 133, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 76

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJune 10, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A. 810 (Ritt v. Dodge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ritt v. Dodge, 37 A. 810, 20 R.I. 133, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 76 (R.I. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As the court understands the agreed statements of facts, the entire title claimed by the plaintiff is based on the mortgage given by John Sinnot and Mary A. Sinnot, his wife, to Edward C. Schaefer, dated December 28, 1885. At that time the title to the property was in the heirs of Thomas J. Lynch, and the only interest of Mrs. Sinnot was an unassigned right of dower. A dowress can convey her dower interest before dower has been set off to the terre tenants only. Weaver v. Sturtevant, 12 R. I. 537; Maxon v. Gray, 14 R. I. 641. The mortgage, therefore, conveyed no title whatever to the premises.

As the mortgage was not a conveyance of the property of a married woman, it is not within the provision of the statute (Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 166, § 4) relating to the covenants of a married woman as to her own property then in force, and hence she is neither bound nor estopped by them. Mason v. Jordan, 13 R. I. 193.

The court is therefore unable to see that the plaintiff has any title. As, however, the agreed statement of facts is not *134 entirely clear, the court will withhold its judgment until satisfied that the facts, as above stated, are correct.

Charles Acton Ives, for plaintiff. Frank F. Nolan, for defendant.

Note. — Subsequently judgment was entered for the defendant.

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

Per Curiam.

As the court understands the agreed statements of facts, the entire title claimed by the plaintiff is based on the mortgage given by John Sinnot and Mary A. Sinnot, his wife, to Edward C. Schaefer, dated December 28, 1885. At that time the title to the property was in the heirs of Thomas J. Lynch, and the only interest of Mrs. Sinnot was an unassigned right of dower. A dowress can convey her dower interest before dower has been set off to the terre tenants only. Weaver v. Sturtevant, 12 R. I. 537; Maxon v. Gray, 14 R. I. 641. The mortgage, therefore, conveyed no title whatever to the premises.

As the mortgage was not a conveyance of the property of a married woman, it is not within the provision of the statute (Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 166, § 4) relating to the covenants of a married woman as to her own property then in force, and hence she is neither bound nor estopped by them. Mason v. Jordan, 13 R. I. 193.

The court is therefore unable to see that the plaintiff has any title. As, however, the agreed statement of facts is not *134 entirely clear, the court will withhold its judgment until satisfied that the facts, as above stated, are correct.

Charles Acton Ives, for plaintiff. Frank F. Nolan, for defendant.

Note. — Subsequently judgment was entered for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A. 810, 20 R.I. 133, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ritt-v-dodge-ri-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack