O'gara v. Neylon
| Decision Date | 28 March 1894 |
| Parties | O'GARA v. NEYLON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Edward L. Rand, for appellant.
John P Leahy, for appellee.
This is a writ of dower dated October 17, 1891. The demandant's husband died seised of the land on December 24, 1866, leaving the demandant and two children, one of whom was six, and the other nine, years of age. The demandant occupied the land with the children until 1870, when she moved away, leaving the place in charge of a neighbor, and continued to receive rent up to December 7, 1875. Since that date she has received no rent. Administration on the estate of the demandant's husband was granted May 11, 1885, to a public administrator on a petition representing that the deceased had died, not leaving a known widow or heirs in this commonwealth, and the land was duly sold by the administrator on August 25, 1885 for payment of debts and charges of administration. Upon the settlement of the administrator's account it appears that the sum of $56.25 was paid by him to the demandant, and other sums to the two children. There were no assets except the proceeds of the sale of the land. The purchaser was one Murphy, who, on December 29, 1887, conveyed the land to one Walsh, who, on May 17, 1888, conveyed it to the tenant, who purchased it in good faith and for valuable consideration, and who had no notice of any right or claim of the demandant, or of any prior occupation of the land by her.
The tenant pleads that no claim or action for the demandant's interest in her husband's estate was made or commenced by the demandant within 20 years after the death of her husband, and that her claim for dower is therefore barred under the provisions of Pub.St. c. 124, § 14; while the demandant contends that because, after her husband's death, she continued to occupy the lands with his heirs until 1870, and to receive the rents until December 7, 1875, her right of dower is not barred by the provisions of Pub.St. c. 124, § 14, and is saved by the provisions of Id. § 13. Both these provisions were considered by the court in the case of Hastings v. Mace, 157 Mass. 499, 32 N.E. 668, in which the demandant, who had, for more than 20 years after her husband's death, occupied, with his heirs, land of which he died seised, was held to be entitled to bring a petition for the assignment of her dower when, after the expiration of 20 years, the heirs sought to hold the land in severalty; and her right in that case was held to be not barred by the provisions of Pub.St. c. 124, § 14. That case was between the widow and the heirs of her deceased husband, with whom, until the bringing of her petition for dower, the widow had occupied the land in common; and it did not necessarily involve the effect of Id. §§ 13, 14, upon the rights of a bona fide purchaser who had bought the land more than 20 years after the husband's death, and without notice of the widow's right or claim, or of her occupation of the lands or receipt of rents after her husband's death. In the decision of the case at bar we have to determine whether, if the widow has not continued to occupy the lands with the heirs or devisees of her deceased husband, or to receive her share of the rents, issues, and profits, and the land has passed into the ownership of a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice of her claim or right, or of the fact that she occupied or received the rents with her husband's heirs or devisees, her claim or action can be maintained unless commenced within 20 years from her husband's death. In the former case the widow, in making her petition against the heirs of her deceased husband for the assignment of her dower, was exactly within the terms of Pub.St. c. 124, § 13. She had continued to occupy the lands with the heirs, or to receive her share of the rents, without objection from them, until the time when they chose to occupy in severalty, and she then claimed her interest and brought her petition for dower. In the case at bar the demandant is not within the letter of Pub.St. c. 124, § 13, because she has not continued to occupy the lands with the heirs or to receive her share of the rents, but had ceased to do either nearly 16 years before demanding her dower of the tenant; nor have the heirs put an end to her occupancy or receipt of rents by seeking to hold the land in severalty, but it has been sold by the administrator of her husband's estate, under whom, and not under the heirs of her husband, the tenant holds.
The present action comes within the letter of the provision of Pub.St. c. 124,§ 14, that "no widow shall be entitled to make claim for an interest in her husband's real estate or to commence an action or other...
To continue reading
Request your trial