Shockley v. Clifton

Delaware Orphan's Court

Shockley v. Clifton

2 Del. Cas. 627, 1821 Del. LEXIS 20

DecidedAugust 6, 1821

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Del. Cas. 627 (Shockley v. Clifton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Orphan's Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shockley v. Clifton, 2 Del. Cas. 627, 1821 Del. LEXIS 20 (Del. Ct. App. 1821).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor

decreed that Mary Shockley should have her dower. He said that the partition made by the devisees of John Ralston, Esq., although she asquiesced in it, was not a bar to her recovery; and he referred to Kennedy v. Nedrow et ux. et al., 1 Dall. 415, where the widow, a devisee, herself caused partition to be made, and nevertheless recovered her dower; and this he said was a much stronger case. Her acquiescence was no bar.

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

The Chancellor

decreed that Mary Shockley should have her dower. He said that the partition made by the devisees of John Ralston, Esq., although she asquiesced in it, was not a bar to her recovery; and he referred to Kennedy v. Nedrow et ux. et al., 1 Dall. 415, where the widow, a devisee, herself caused partition to be made, and nevertheless recovered her dower; and this he said was a much stronger case. Her acquiescence was no bar.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Del. Cas. 627, 1821 Del. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shockley-v-clifton-delorphct-1821.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack