By the common law neither adultery alone nor with elopement was a bar to dower ; 2 Scrib. Dow. 531; but by the statute of West minster 2d, a wife who eloped and lived in adultery forfeited her dower-right. This provision has been re-enacted in several of the states and recognized as common law in others ; Lecompte v. Wash, 9 Mo. 555; Ste gall v. Stegall, 2 Brock. 256, Fed. Cas. No. 13,351; Cogswell v. Tibbetts, 3 N. H. 41; Walters v. Jordan, 35 N. C. 361, 57 Am. Dec. 558; 4. Dand, Abr. 676 ; Bell v. Neely, 1 Bailey (S. C.) 312, 19 Am. Dec. 686; contra, Schiffer v. Pruden, 64 N. Y. 47; Lakin v. Lakin, 2 Allen (Mass.) 45; Littlefield v. Paul, 69 Me. 527; Bryan v. Batcheller, 6 R. I. 543, 78 Am. Dec. 454. Dower is not barred even if the wife commit adultery, if she be aban doned by her husband and he be profligate and intemperate and an adulterer ; Rawlins v. Buttel, 1 Houst. (Del.) 224; nor if she be deserted by her husband, will her subsequent seduction and adultery operate as a bar ; Appeal of Nye, 126 Pa. 341, 17 Atl. 618; 6 U. 0. C. P. 310; Shaffer v. Richardson's Adm'r, 27 Ind. 122. For an analysis of de cisions and reference to state statutes on this subject, see 2 Scrib. Dow. 531.
A widow who had been convicted as acces sory before the fact to her husband's mur der was held entitled to dower ; Owens v. Owens, 100 N. C. 240, 6 S. E. 794.
Dower is barred by an annuity given the wife in a divorce decree, and charged on the husband's real estate, where the wife had taken her maintenance under the de cree ; Adams v. Storey, 135 III. 448, 26 N. E. 582, 11 L. R. A. 790, 25 Am. St. Rep. 392.
The widow of a convicted traitor could not recover dower ; 2 Bla. Com. 130; but this principle is not recognized in this country; Wms. R. P. 103, n.
Nor does she in this country, as at com mon law, forfeit her dower by conveying in fee the estate assigned to her ; 4 Kent 82; Wms. R. P. 121, 125, n.; Robinson v. Miller, 1 B. Monr. (Ky.) 88.
The most common mode formerly of bar ring dower was by jointure; Scrib. Dow. 389; Craig's Heirs v. Walthall, 14 Gratt. (Va.) 518; Salley v. Folger, 14 Ohio 610; West v. Walker, 77 Wis. 557, 46 N. W. 819. Marriage is a sufficient consideration to support an ante-nuptial contract for release of dower; Shea's Appeal, 121 Pa. 302, 15 Atl. 629, 1 L. R. A. 422; Worrell v. Forsyth, 141 Ill. 22, 30 N. E. 673. Now it is usually done by joining with her husband in conveying the estate. Formerly this was done by levying a fine, or suffering a recovery ; 4 Kent 51; 2 Bla. Corn. 137; now it is deed executed with her husband and acknowledged in the form required by statute; Wms. R. P. 189;
Coburn v. Herrington, 114 III. 104, 29 N. EL 478 ; Mitch. R. P. 156; which is the mode prevailing in the United States. The hus band must usually join in the act; Moore v. Tisdale, 5 B. Monr. (Ky.) 352; Ulp v. Campbell, 19 Pa. 361; Page v. Page, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 196; Shaw v. Russ, 14 Me. 432.
Words of grant will be sufficient although no reference is made in the deed to dower eo nomine; Dundas v. Hitchcock, 12 How. (U. S.) 256, 13 L. Ed. 978; Smith v. Handy, 16 Ohio 236.
In most of the states her deed must be acknowledged, and in the form pointed out by statute; Williams v. Robson, 6 Ohio St. 510; Kirk v. Dean, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 341; Scan lan v. Turner, 1 Bail. (S. C.) 421; Clark v. Redman, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 379; which must appear in the certificate ; Elwood v. Klock, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 50. She should be of age at the time; Jones v. Todd, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 359; Thomas v. Gemmel, 6 Leigh (Va.) 9; Cunningham v. Knight, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 399; Markham v. Merrett, 7 How. (Miss.) 437, 40 Am. Dec. 76. She cannot release her dower by parol ; see Wood v. Lee, 5 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 57; Keeler v. Tatnell, 23 N. J.
L. 62. A parol sale of lands in which the husband delivers possession, does not ex clude dower; Williams v. Dawson, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 316. But it has been held that she may bar her claim for dower by her own acts operating by way of estoppel ; Heth v. Cocke, 1 Rand. (Va.) 344; Dougrey v. Top ping, 4 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 94 ; Reed v. Mor rison, 12 S. & R. (Pa.) 18 ; Gardiner v. Miles, 5 Gill (Md.) 94.
A release of dower by a wife direct to her husband will not enable him by his sole deed to convey the land free of dower right, for, if the release is at all effectual, the hus band becomes vested with a fee simple and the dower-right immediately reattaches by operation of law ; House v. Fowle, 22 Or. 303, 29 Pac. 890 ; but where the wife has power to release her dower by an attorney in fact, she may constitute her husband, at torney for the purpose; Wronkow v. Oakley, 133 N. Y. 505, 31 N. E. 521, 16 L. R. A. 209, 28 Am.- St. Rep. 661.
A release of dower has been presumed aft er a long of time; Barnard v. Edwards, 4 N. H. 321; Evans v. Evans, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 507.
At common law there was no limitation to the claim for dower ; 4 Kent 70. As to the statutes in the different states, see id. note; 1 Washb. R. P. 217. Adverse posses sion for seven years with claim and color of title and payment of taxes will bar a elaim of 'dower ; Brian v. Melton, 125 Ill. 647, 18 N. E. 318; Null v. Howell, 111 Mo. 275, 20 S. W. 24 ; but see Boling v. Clark, 83 La. 481, 50 N. W. 57.