Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 Ark. 313

Barnett v. Meacham

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 18, 1896

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1896-04-18

John B. McCaleb, Judge, on exchange of circuits. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. The appellant brought this suit to recover the land in controversy. Judgment was rendered against him, and he seeks by this appeal to reverse said judgment. The land was owned by the appellant’s brother, who died, while a soldier in the Confederate army, in 1862, leaving him surviving, Julia, his widow, and an infant son, who died in 1863.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It has been recently decided in this court that the conveyance by a widow of her right of dower in the lands of her deceased husband, before the assignment of her dower, confers upon the alienee no right which he • can enforce at law, but that he may, in equity, have her dower set aside and assigned to him. A widow, before the assignment of her dower, may occupy and hold the mansion house and farm attached free of rent till her dower is assigned. But, if she abandons the possession, the heir may enter and occupy the premises, subject to her right to have dower assigned. ‘She may occupy and cultivate the land herself, or allow another to do it for her.’ She need not remain on it in person, ‘for it may be she could only derive a support from the premises by renting them.’ McReynolds v. Counts, 9 Grat. (Va.) 242; Oakley v. Oakley, 30 Ala. 131 ; Padgett v. Norman, 44 Ark. 490 . ‘But this (quarantine) right to occupy the premises, or to receive the profits for her maintenance, is so far personal to the widow that it cannot be transferred to another; and if, before her dower is assigned, she makes a conveyance of her interest, the heir may recover in ejectment.against the alienee.’ 2 Scribner, Dower, p. 64; Wallace v. Hall, 19 Ala. 367 ; Wallis v. Doe, 2 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 220. When Mrs. Ward transferred her interest to Meacham, and abandoned the premises, a right of action in ejectment against Meacham accrued to the appellant.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Byrne v. Kernals

Relies on Wallace v. Hall's Heirs · Oakley v. Oakley · Padgett v. Norman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1896-04-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 1978

9 state decisions

30189619001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Hughes, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts). It has been recently decided in this court that the conveyance by a widow of her right of dower in the lands of her deceased husband, before the assignment of her dower, confers upon the alienee no right which he can enforce at law, but that he may, in equity, have her dower set aside and assigned to him.* A widow, before the assignment of her dower, may occupy and hold the mansion house and farm attached free of rent, till her dower is assigned. But, if she abandons the possession, the heir may enter and occupy the premises, subject to her right to have dower assigned. “She may occupy and cultivate the land herself, or allow another to do it for her.” She need not remain on it in person, “for it may be she could only derive a support from the premises by renting them.” McReynolds v. Counts, 9 Grat. 242; Oakley v. Oakley, 30 Ala. 131; Padgett v. Norman, 44 Ark. 490. “But this (quarantine) right to occupy the premises, or to receive the profits for her maintenance, is so far personal to the widow that it cannot be transferred to another; and if, before her dower is assigned, she makes a conveyance of her interest, the heir may recover in ejectment against the alienee.” 2 Scribner, Dower, p. 64; Wallace v. Hall, 19 Ala. 367; Wallis v. Doe, 2 Smedes & M. 220. When Mrs. Ward transferred her interest to Meacham, and abandoned the premises, a right of action in ejectment against Meacham accrued to the appellant.

Limitation to action to decedent’s land'

¶2Having delayed to bring his action until long after o y o o the lapse of seven years, and Meacham and those claiming under him having had adverse possession for over seven years next before the commencement of this suit, the appellant’s right of action was barred by the seven-years statute of limitations before his suit was commenced. Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.

¶3 Weaver v. Rush, ante, p. 51.

/62/ark/313 · .json · Public domain