Hamblin v. President of Bank of Cumberland
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This Was an action for dower in certain lands described in' the demandant’s writ, which was dated Feb. 4, 1840. The' demandant proved her marriage with Eli Hamblin, and his death, and that she had duly made a demand for dower on the tenants, Dec. 4, ,1839'. She also introduced a contract, dated June. 22, 1836, between James Smith and Eli Hamblin, reciting’ a purchase by Smith frótíi Hamblin, the demandant’s husband,Of the estate in which dower was claimed — a deed…
Read the full summary
This Was an action for dower in certain lands described in' the demandant’s writ, which was dated Feb. 4, 1840. The' demandant proved her marriage with Eli Hamblin, and his death, and that she had duly made a demand for dower on the tenants, Dec. 4, ,1839'. She also introduced a contract, dated June. 22, 1836, between James Smith and Eli Hamblin, reciting’ a purchase by Smith frótíi Hamblin, the demandant’s husband,Of the estate in which dower was claimed — a deed acknowledged June 22, 1836, James Smith and wife to Eli Hamblin —■■ a deed dated Dec. 10, 1836, from Eli Hamblin and Joseph G,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Weston C. J.
It appears that the fee of the whole land, in which dower is demanded, had been in Joseph G. Hamblin. The evidence offered by the demandant is not sufficient to justify the jury in finding that Eli Hamblin, her husband, after-*69wards became sole seized. By the subsequent occupancy of both, the fee would remain according to the legal title. Eli having built by the consent of Joseph, might, have held or sold his house as personal property. The parol division of the two houses, if it was intended to embrace the land, could not have the effect to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dolf v. BassetNew York Supreme Court · 1818