Russell v. Austin
New York Court of Chancery
Oh the 20th of February, 1822, John Russell, the husband of the complainant, was seized in fee of a house and lot in the city of Albany; and being so seized, he, together with the complainant, executed a mortgage thereon to the commissioners of the city stock to secure the payment of $1,000 and interest.
Read the full summary
Oh the 20th of February, 1822, John Russell, the husband of the complainant, was seized in fee of a house and lot in the city of Albany; and being so seized, he, together with the complainant, executed a mortgage thereon to the commissioners of the city stock to secure the payment of $1,000 and interest. On the 26th of February, 1823, Spencer and Corning obtained a judgment against Russell in the Supreme Court, and issued an execution thereon; by virtue of which, the premises were sold to Corning on the 20th of December, 1823, for $600, and he received a certificate of such purchase from the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :—There is no doubt of the complainant’s right to be endowed of the premises which formerly belonged to her husband. She claims the one-third of the premises as her dower, and the arrears which have heretofore accrued, together with the costs of this suit; but the defendant insists she is only entitled to dower in the equity of redemption, and that she has no claim, either for the arrears or for costs.
In the case of Coates v. Cheever (1 Cowen’s R. 460,) the Supreme Court decided that the widow was entitled to dower, as well in that half of the premises against which Cheever had…
2Cited by8 opinions
- McMahon v. RussellSupreme Court of Florida · 1880
- Hartshorne v. HartshorneNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1840
- Eldridge v. EldridgeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1862
- Graham v. . LindenNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Thompson v. BoydSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1849
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.