Larrabee & Wife v. Van Alstyne
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of dower. The claim of the demandant was resisted on the ground, that by the will of Cornelius Van Alstyne, the late husband of Mrs. Larrabee, she was barred of her dower.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of dower. The claim of the demandant was resisted on the ground, that by the will of Cornelius Van Alstyne, the late husband of Mrs. Larrabee, she was barred of her dower. The testator, bequeathed to his wife certain specific articles of household furniture, and forty pounds in money, to be paid at the times therein mentioned, and then declares, “ that this bequest and u devise, shall be understood in no other sense, than to ft be in lieu and stead of every other claim and preien61 sion, my said wife can, or may have on my estate.” Thirty-seven pounds had been paid to Mrs.…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer., J.
The bequest to the wife, is not expressed to be in lieu or recompence of dower; and it is questionable, whether, if such were the expression, and if the collateral recompence had been paid, the heir could have defended himself at law. It is not necessary to decide that point; I consider it well settled that to bar this claim, the devise must expressly declare the thing given, to be in bar of dower.* Had the will gone so far, and if even the donation of a sum of money would furnish a defence, yet here the tenant fails on the ground, that the sum given has not been paid. The demandants must…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Oliver v. WellsNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Corriell v. HamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1856
- Jackson ex dem. Loucks v. ChurchillNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Akin v. KelloggNew York Supreme Court · 1888
- Pickett v. PeaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1815
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.