Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 U.S. 127

Scott v. Crosdale

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January 1, 1791

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1791

THIS was an action of Dower, brought in Bucks County, against the defendant, who had purchased lands, sold by the sheriff under a judgment obtained on a Scire Facias on a mortgage. The mortgage was executed by the husband, but the plaintiff (his widow) was no party to it: And on the trial Justice Atlee reserved the point, whether the wife’s dower was bound by the mortgage ? contended that there was a distinction as to the effect of a sale under a Fi Fa. and a Levari Facias.

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1791

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1934

3 state decisions

20179118001810182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1THIS was an action of Dower, brought in Bucks County, against the defendant, who had purchased lands, sold by the sheriff under a judgment obtained on a Scire Facias on a mortgage. The mortgage was executed by the husband, but the plaintiff (his widow) was no party to it: And on the trial Justice Atlee reserved the point, whether the wife’s dower was bound by the mortgage ?

¶2Serjeant, for the plaintiff,

¶3contended that there was a distinction as to the effect of a sale under a Fi Fa. and a Levari Fa*128cias. That, in the latter case, the act (1 Vol. Dall. Edit. p. 71. 2.) directs that no greater estate shall be conveyed, than the lands, are mortgaged for: And in this case the woman had not done any act to bar her estate in the lands. He added that in New-Jersey, where the act of Assembly was very similar, the wife was always held to be entitled to dower.

¶4Wilcocks,

¶5after stating that at Chester, in the case, of Howell versus Laycock, it was determined that a sale by an Executor, to whom lands were devised for the payment of debts, barred die widow’s dower, would have proceeded; but,

¶6By the Court:

¶7—The point has been too long Settled to be Stirred now; and judgment must be for the defendant.

/2/us/127 · .json · Public domain