Vischer v. Conant
New York Supreme Court
Dower unde nihil habet, of land in Massena, in the county of St. Lawrence. The count was in the- usual -S-enera^ f°rm) without showing any land in certain; and nowpafteua- special imparlance, and before plea,
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per
Savage, Ch. J.
It was decided in Ostrander v. Kneeland, (20 John. Rep. 276,) that, in dower unde nihil habet, view cannot be demanded of course; and it has been doubted whether it lies at all; (Booth on R. A. 38, and note, Anthon’s ed. Park on Dower, 286;) though the better opinion seems to be that it does. (Park on Dower, 286, and the authorities there cited in note.) And this is plainly implied by the statute, (1 R. L. 86, 7, s. 21,) which denies it “ when the dower in demand is of land that the husband aliened to the tenant, or his or her ancestors,, where the tenant ought not to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ostbander v. KneelandNew York Supreme Court · 1822
3Cited by2 opinions
- Tilton v. . BeecherNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Tilton v. BeecherNew York Court of Appeals · 1874