Gibson v. Gibson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was a writ of dower unde nihil habei, wherein the said Susan demands her reasonable dower in certain lands and tenements, of which her husband was seised during the coverture — the said Abraham and others, the tenants, being the heirs at law of the deceased husband.
Read the full summary
This was a writ of dower unde nihil habei, wherein the said Susan demands her reasonable dower in certain lands and tenements, of which her husband was seised during the coverture — the said Abraham and others, the tenants, being the heirs at law of the deceased husband. Besides a plea in bar, which terminated in an issue of fact, the .enants set forth the following indenture, relying upon it as an estoppel to the demand made in the action, viz.: “ This indenture tripartite, made, &c., between Abraham Gibson, of, &c., of the first part, Susan Spurr, of, &c., of the second part, and Nathaniel…
1Opinion of the Court
* Wilde, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court. The question now to be determined is, whether the indenture set forth in the second plea at bar is sufficient to preclude the recovery, by way of estoppel. It was settled in the case of Hastings vs. Dickinson & Ux., cited by the counsel for the demandant, that a like indenture or marriage-settlement would be no bar of dower at common law, or by the statute of 27 Hen. 8, c. 10. Nor could it operate as a release, because the release of a demand not in existence is void. These points were decided upon principles which, we think, cannot be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- M'Cartee v. TellerNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
3Cited by17 opinions
- Rorer Iron Co. v. TroutSupreme Court of Virginia · 1887
- Osborne v. OsborneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
- Hatchett v. GibsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
- Loveland v. WarnerOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Mann v. Mann's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.