Tuttle v. Willson
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Washington. The complainant states, in her bill of complaint, that she was married to one Samuel Seaman, who was seized, during her coverture, of one hundred acres of land, in the county of Washington, conveyed to him on March 24, 1794, in fee, and that, in 1815, her said husband died. She further states, that the respondent, Willson, is in possession of said land, claiming to hold an estate of inheritance therein.
Read the full summary
This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Washington. The complainant states, in her bill of complaint, that she was married to one Samuel Seaman, who was seized, during her coverture, of one hundred acres of land, in the county of Washington, conveyed to him on March 24, 1794, in fee, and that, in 1815, her said husband died. She further states, that the respondent, Willson, is in possession of said land, claiming to hold an estate of inheritance therein. She prays that the respondent may be decreed to assign her one full and equal third part of the premises, as her reasonable dower in…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
The issue made up, in this case, raises the question whether the act of 1810, in force when the husband of the complainant died, closes the door against relief, or whether the complainant is otherwise barred by lapse of time? In some of the states it has been decided, that their statutes of limitations are not to be applied to a suit for dower. 4 N. H. 107; 6 Johns. Ch. 194. But such adjudications appear to have grown out of the peculiar phraseology of their laws. In Jones v. Powell, 6 Johns. Ch. 194, the chancellor seems to place it entirely upon that ground, the statute of New York…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Piatt v. VattierSupreme Court of the United States · 1835
- Henry Miller's Heirs & Devisees v. M'IntyreSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Jones v. PowellNew York Court of Chancery · 1822