Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

44 Mo. 23

Ewing v. Ewing

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1869

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1869-03-15

<p>1. Dower — Election, right of — Notice of— Constmction of statute. — A failure on the part of the County Court to give notice to the widow apprising her of her right to elect her dower, as provided by section 9, p. 670, R. O. 1855 (Gen. Stat. 1865, ch. 130, § 9), will not have the effect of prolonging the time within which sho must make her olection. (Price v. Woodford, 43 Mo. 247, affirmed.)</p>

Relies on Price v. Woodford

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1956

6 state decisions

201869187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Wagner,, Judge

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This was an action for partition, brought by the plaintiffs as heirs of James S. Ewing, deceased, for the assignment of dower to the defendant as surviving widow. It was admitted that defendant owned one-fifth of the premises as purchaser; and she also claimed that she was entitled to one-half of the balance as her dower interest, under section 5 of the chapter on dower in the Revised Code of 1855, which is applicable to and governs this case. This claim was rejected, on the ground that she had not filed her declaration electing to take under that section within one year. It seems that she was never notified of her right to elect by the County Court of the county where administration was granted, and did not attempt to comply with the law by filing her written declaration, properly acknowledged, till several years, after administration was granted, and not until after the administration on the estate was wound up and closed.

¶3The case is precisely similar to Price v. Woodford, 43 Mo. 247, decided at January term, where we held that a failure on the part of the County Court to give the notice to the widow would not have the effect of prolonging the time within which she must make her election. This case was brought here without any knowledge of that decision being made by the counsel for the appellant, and they have filed a very full and learned brief, and ask for a review of the decision. Wo have re-examined the question attentively and carefully, and are satisfied with the conclusion reached in that case. It is unnecessary to repeat the reasons which lead to that conclusion.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

The other judges concur.
/44/mo/23 · .json · Public domain