Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Ind. 354

Cheek v. Wilson

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 26, 1855

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1855-12-26

<p>The statute of 1843 -which gave to the widow 150 dollars out of her husband's estate, for which she should not account, was meant as a provision independent of dower, or of bequests contained in a will.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-12-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1906

6 state decisions

20185518601870188018901900decided

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 →

Perkins, J.—Suit

¶1by Wilson, administrator of Damiel Lynn, deceased, against Elizabeth II. Cheek, formerly Elizabeth II. Lyrm, widow of said Daniel Lynn, deceased, on a promissory note. The surety on the note, and her now husband are sued jointly with her, but the fact is not material to be remembered. A denial of the complaint was put in. The following agreement of counsel presents the only question to be decided.

¶2“ The parties agree that if the said Elizabeth H. Cheek, who was the widow of Dcmiel Lynn, senior, deceased, who made his last will and testament, by which he bequeathed certain personal property to the said Elizabeth II, which she has accepted and received, and also a life estate in said real estate described in said will, is entitled to have of said estate 150 dollars in money or property, then there shall be credit allowed on the note on which this suit was *355brought of 150 dollars, and a judgment for the residue of said note, deducting the credits indorsed, against defendants. And it is further submitted to the Court to determine whether or not the property bequeathed to the said Elizabeth EL by the will, should be considered by the Court as a part of 150 dollars, or equal thereto in value.”

D. S. Major and A. Brower, for the appellants.J. T. Brown, for the appellee.

¶3The statute which governs this case, E. S. 1843, p. 1049, gave to the widow 150 dollars out of her husband’s estate, for which she was not bound in any manner to account. We think the sum independent of dower, or bequests in a will. See Kellogg et al. v. Graves et al., 5 Ind. R. 509.

¶4The Court below should have allowed the credit.

Per Curiam.

¶5The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, with instructions to the Circuit Court to allow said credit.

/7/ind/354 · .json · Public domain