Hyatt v. O'Connell
| Decision Date | 18 May 1906 |
| Citation | 107 N.W. 599,130 Iowa 567 |
| Parties | MARY HYATT v. ADA L. O'CONNELL, ET AL., Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Linn District Court.--HON.J. H. PRESTON, Judge.
ACTION for admeasurement of plaintiff's dower in land conveyed by her husband during his lifetime without relinquishment by plaintiff. Decree for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.--Modified and affirmed.
Modified and affirmed.
Redmond & Steward, for appellants.
Heins & Heins, for appellee.
The plaintiff was married in 1854 to Geo. R. Hyatt, who, prior to March, 1855, acquired title in the real property to which this action relates, which title he conveyed to defendant's remote grantor on that date, the plaintiff not joining in the deed. Geo. R. Hyatt died in 1903, and this action was soon after commenced for the admeasurement of plaintiff's dower in the property. The court decreed that plaintiff was entitled to one-third of the property for life to be specifically set off to her, and if admeasurement be found impracticable then, that the rent which defendant should pay to plaintiff during her life in lieu of the possession of a specific share be determined, and provided for the appointment of referees. Counsel for appellant do not seriously question the correctness of the decree as to the right of the wife in such case as this, to have her dower interest set off from any land conveyed by her husband during the coverture in the conveyance of which she has not joined. Such right is fully recognized in Lucas v. White, 120 Iowa 735, 95 N.W. 209; Lucas v Whitacre, 121 Iowa 251, 96 N.W. 776; Purcell v Lang, 97 Iowa 610, 66 N.W. 887.
It is contended that under the evidence an estoppel is made out so as to bring the case within the principle recognized in Dunlap v. Thomas, 69 Iowa 358, 28 N.W. 637, and Williams v. Wells, 62 Iowa 740, 16 N.W. 513, but we find nothing in the evidence to support an estoppel. Plaintiff had no dealings with the purchaser of the land from the husband, and made no representation to him. When her husband asked her to sign the deed, she refused to do so, and he then sold the land without his wife's joining in the conveyance. There is nothing to indicate any connivance by the wife in any plan or representation by which the purchaser was induced to believe that the grantor was unmarried.
It is urged that plaintiff allowed her husband to use the proceeds of the land in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial