¶1dissented, and stated his opinion to be that where the conveyance to the wife is expressed to be for her sole use and benefit, as in this case, she took the property unaffected by the marital right of the husband, and that consequently a creditor who had advanced money to the wife for the improvement of the property, and taken security from her alone thereon, was not to be postponed to the curtesy of the husband.
9 D.C. 60
De Hart v. Dean
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided January 15, 1875
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · decided 1875-01-15
<p>I; The circumstances required to create an estate by curtesy are marriage, seizin of the wife, issue born alive, and the death of the wife; and where the language of the habendum clause, in a conveyance of real estate to a married woman, was “ To have and to hold the said pieces or parcels of ground unto the said party of the second part, her heirs and assigns, to her and their sole use, benefit, and behoof forever,” and all of the foregoing circumstances had transpired, it was held that the husband had an estate as tenant by the curtesy.</p> <p>II. The act of Congress for the protection of the rights of married women in this District, so far as regards the rights of the husband in the real estate of his wife, is not retroactive, and applies only in reference to property acquired after the passage of the act.</p>
Decided 1875-01-15