Fowler v. M'Clurg
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. DOWER. Sarah Fowler, the widow of Alexander Fowler, brought this action, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county, to recover her dower in a lot of ground, &c., in Pittsburgh, of which the defendants were in possession, and of which it was admitted, her husband was seised in fee on 8th October, 1791, when he, and his wife, the tiff, to whom it was admitted he was lawfully married, conveyed part of it to William Earle and James Kenvin.
Read the full summary
In Error. DOWER. Sarah Fowler, the widow of Alexander Fowler, brought this action, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county, to recover her dower in a lot of ground, &c., in Pittsburgh, of which the defendants were in possession, and of which it was admitted, her husband was seised in fee on 8th October, 1791, when he, and his wife, the tiff, to whom it was admitted he was lawfully married, conveyed part of it to William Earle and James Kenvin. The deed was acknowledged before a iustice of the peace, whose , ° J r certificate ran thus. “ Allegheney county, ss. “ On the 37th February,…
1Opinion of the Court
By The Court.
This case cannot be distinguished from Watson’s Lessee v. Bailey;(b) the principle of which has been affirmed by this Court, in several subsequent cases, particularly in Evans v. The Commonwealth, (Sunbury, June, 1818,) and Hopkins v. Birchall, (Philadelphia, July, 1818.) The act of assembly has not been substantially complied with. It does not appear, that the wife acted without coertion or compulsion of her husband. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.
Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.
1 Binn. 470, See ante 40,
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lessee of Watson v. BaileySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1808
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dengenhart v. CracraftOhio Supreme Court · 1881