Bowie v. Berry
High Court of Chancery of Maryland
[The facts of this case are stated in the report of the former opinion of the Chancellor, in 1 Maryland Chancery Decisions, 452. After that decision had been made, a report was made and accounts stated by the Auditor, to which the defendant excepted, 1st, because the complainant was not entitled to dower at all; 2d, because no credit was allowed for the purchase-money paid by him, and applied by the husband in procuring the legal title, which he insists should be charged…
Read the full summary
[The facts of this case are stated in the report of the former opinion of the Chancellor, in 1 Maryland Chancery Decisions, 452. After that decision had been made, a report was made and accounts stated by the Auditor, to which the defendant excepted, 1st, because the complainant was not entitled to dower at all; 2d, because no credit was allowed for the purchase-money paid by him, and applied by the husband in procuring the legal title, which he insists should be charged against the dower; and 3d, because in any event she is only entitled to dower in the lands after deducting such sum from…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:
It is observed in the opinion delivered by this Court, on the 26th of July, 1849 (1 Md. Ch. Decisions, 452), that the case *361had not been argued on the part of the defendant, and therefore the point was ¡reserved whether the value of the property out of which dower was claimed, should not be diminished by the amount of certain sums paid by the defendant to Mr. Bowie in his lifetime, and which seems had been applied by him in procuring the title from his vendors.
The title, however, of the complainant to dower, was decided, and though without the benefit of an argument on the part…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gibson v. McCormickCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1838
- Miller v. StumpCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1845
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re Estate of PullingMichigan Supreme Court · 1893