Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

33 Mo. 523

McDowell v. Little

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1863

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1863-03-15

Louis Land Court. This was an action for ejectment. The defendants were in possession under a lease from Rosalie Chataigne or Robidoux, dated January 1, 1850, for fifteen years from that date. Rosalie Robidoux died in 1858. The plaintiffs claim possession as tenants in remainder in fee, by virtue of what they claim to have been a deed of settlement, executed November 16, 1820, by J. B. Robidoux and Rosalie his wife.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1883

4 state decisions

Relies on Reaume v. Chambers · Lindell v. McNair

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bates, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The first question for consideration, and the only one which we find it necessary to consider, is, whether the deed made by Robidoux and wife to Cozens has any effect upon the estate of the wife in the land described in it.

¶3In the case of Lindell v. McNair, (4 Mo. 380,) this court held that a married woman might, in 1820, when this deed was executed, convey her lands by conforming to the mode of executing and acknowledging deeds prescribed by our acts of Assembly. The opinion also states that “ the act of 17th July, 1807, directs how conveyances of land shall be made and authenticated,” thus deciding that the mode prescribed *528in the act of 1807 must be conformed to. That act by its terms refers only to the execution and acknowledgment, by married women, of deeds for the conveyance of their rights of dower, but the court evidently held that the same mode must be conformed to in order to. pass any other interest of the wife in the land.

¶4In the case of Reaume v. Chambers, (22 Mo. 52,) Judge Scott held that the case of McNair v. Lindell decides nothing more than that a conveyance made by the husband and wife during the period between the introduction of the common law, on January 19, 1816, and the statute enabling husband and wife to convey real estate belonging to the wife, passed on the 22d June, 1821, in pursuance to the statute law then in force regulating the conveyances of married men’s estates and the mode of relinquishing dower therein, will be effectual to convey the real estate belonging to the wife.

¶5In the present case the deed is not executed in conformity to the statutes then in force regulating the conveyances of married women’s estates and the mode of relinquishing dower therein. It was proved only by the oath of a subscribing witness. There was no acknowledgment at all, and of course no explanation to the wife and privy examination of her.

¶6The deed, therefore, was not effective to convey the land of Mrs. Robidoux, and the judgment must be reversed.

¶7Reversed and remanded.

Judges Bay and Dryden concur.
/33/mo/523 · .json · Public domain