Durando v. . Durando
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
To entitle a widow to dower, the husband must have been seised, either in fact or in law, of an estate of inheritance in the land at some time during the coverture. This rule is inflexible. When, therefore, the husband had, previous to his death, simply a reversion in fee, or a vested remainder expectant upon an estate for life, his widow cannot be endowed. As in such a case the husband has never had either possession or any present right of possession, he cannot be said to have had a seizin of any sort, either actual or legal. It is conceded by the counsel for the appellant, that this rule…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dunham v. OsbornNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- Eldredge v. ForrestalMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- In re CregierNew York Court of Chancery · 1846
- Beekman v. HudsonNew York Supreme Court · 1838
3Cited by23 opinions
- Strawn v. StrawnIllinois Supreme Court · 1869
- Heldhauser v. SchulzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1922
- Ward v. WardU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1904
- House v. . JacksonNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Lugar v. LugarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.