Forbes v. Sweesy
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Douglas county. The opinion states the case. 1. The. law has become substantially settled that while the married women’s acts excluded the husband during her life from control or of interference with his wife’s separate, real, and personal estate, and give to her alone the power of disposition by deed or will, yet they left the husband the right of curtesy in her real property which remained undisposed of and unbequeathed at her death.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Douglas county. The opinion states the case. 1. The. law has become substantially settled that while the married women’s acts excluded the husband during her life from control or of interference with his wife’s separate, real, and personal estate, and give to her alone the power of disposition by deed or will, yet they left the husband the right of curtesy in her real property which remained undisposed of and unbequeathed at her death. Schouler on Domestic Relations, p. 196. Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y., 280. Cole v. Van Hiper, 44 111., 58. The better opinion…
1Opinion of the Court
Maxwell, Ch. J.
On the twenty-first day of January, 1876, Peter Eorbes filed his petition in the district court of Douglas county, alleging “that on the-day of July, 1875, he became and ever since has remained, the owner of the legal estate for the life of one Milan Hunt as tenant by the curtesy, and which estate still con*523tinues and is undetermined, in the following lands and tenements, to-wit: The east forty-four feet of lot one, in block one hundred and eighteen, in the city of Omaha, in the county of Douglas, and state of Nebraska, and is entitled to the possession of the same, and that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Davis v. MasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
3Cited by2 opinions
- Deming v. MilesNebraska Supreme Court · 1892
- Mathews v. GlockelNebraska Supreme Court · 1908