Dingman v. Dingman
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the District Court of Shelby County. Daniel Y. Dingman, Sr., died, leaving a certain' tract of land in Shelby county, which he, by bis will, .devised to bis four sons, Daniel Y., George TV., Francis A., and James TV., husband of defendant in error. Francis A. died before the' testator, without heirs of his body, and under said will said lands went to the. other three sons named.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Shelby County. Daniel Y. Dingman, Sr., died, leaving a certain' tract of land in Shelby county, which he, by bis will, .devised to bis four sons, Daniel Y., George TV., Francis A., and James TV., husband of defendant in error. Francis A. died before the' testator, without heirs of his body, and under said will said lands went to the. other three sons named. The said Daniel Y. Dingman, Sr., by bis said will, also devised $5.00 to each of five daughters therein named, and required the sons to whom the land was devised to pay the legacies to the daughters, and…
1Opinion of the CourtDoyle, J.
It is conceded in argument that James W. Dingman had, during coverture, an estate of inheritance in the lands in controversy. He was seised of the legal title in fee-simple, charged with a lien in favor of the legatees.
Under the first clause of the statutes, S. and C. 516, § 1, on the concurrence of marriage and seisin, the wife became invested with dower inchoate, and had there been no lien upon or interest in the land superior thereto, on the death of the husband she would have been entitled to an assignment of dower out of the whole of the land. The entire interest of the husband, both…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smith v. HandyOhio Supreme Court · 1847
- Edwards v. OwenOhio Supreme Court · 1846