Kelly v. Mahan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Dower of 20 acres of meadow, 100 acres of arable land and 280 acres of woodland, nm.de nihil habet. The cause was tried at Chambersburgh, on the 20th April, 1798, before the late Chief Justice M’Kean and Smith Justice, who directed a non-suit ou the ease being opened by the plaintiffs counsel, that the seisin of the husband, was solely under an improvement right with out aüy office title whatever.
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
We are satisfied, there has been no previous adjudication on this point. We have gone too far into the improvement doctrine, to exclude a widow from her claim of dower of lands, held under such equitable, though imperfect title, so frequently recognized by the laws and usage of this state: — Ejectments have frequently been supported under such rights: and it has been determined, that a prior improvement under Pennsylvania, shall prevail against a Yirginia certificate, under the compact between the two states. The sale of improved lands for payment of debts, by an administrator in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bradfords v. KentsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
- DeWitt v. DeWittSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Reed v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824