There seems to be no remedy for her now in either country where the land has dete riorated in value by the waste and misman agement of the alienee or by extraneous circumstances; McClanahan v. Porter, -10 Mo. 746; see Westcott v. Campbell, 11 R. I. 378; but she must be content to take her dower in the property as it was at the time of her husband's death; 1 Washb. R. P. 239. See Sanders v. McMillian, 98 Ala. 144, 11 South. 750, 18 L R. A. 425, 39 Am. St. Rep. 19. Where the widow dies without asserting her claim, neither her personal representa tives, nor those of her assignee of such dow er right, can maintain an action to have dower admeasured or for a gross sum in lieu thereof ; Howell v. Newman, 59 Hun 538, 13 N. Y. Supp. 648; Pollitt v. Kerr, 49 N. J. Eq. 66, 22 Ati. 800.
Dower may also be recovered in equity, the jurisdiction of which, as Chancellor Kent says, "has been thoroughly examined, clearly asserted, and definitively establish ed;" 4 Kent 71; and nearly half a century later this language is repeated as correctly expressing the result of the authorities; Bisph. Eq. § 495. The jurisdiction was as serted in the U. S. at an early period; Gray son v; Moncure, 1 Leigh (Va.) 449; Kendall v. Honey, 5 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 284; Stevens v. Smith, 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 64, 20 Am. Dec. 205; Swaine v. Perin, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 482,- 9 Am. Dec. 318; Iladgley v. Bruce, 4 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 98; and although in New Jersey in the time of Kent the equitable jurisdiction was denied; 4 Kent 72; Harri son v. Eldridge, 7 N. J. L. 392 ; it was after wards asserted and sustained ; 1 Green Ch. ;349. The jurisdiction is concurrent with that of courts of law, which must settle the legal title when that is in controversy, "but if that be admitted or settled, full and effec tual relief can be granted to the widow in equity both as to the assignment of dower and the damages ;" 4 Kent 71; and in many respects the remedy in equity possesses great advantages over that at law ; Bisph. Eq. § 496. As to the remedies afforded both by law and equity for the enforcement of dow er, see 1 Washb. R. P. 226; 4 W. R. 459.
Nature of the estate in dower. Until the death of her husband, the wife's right of dower is not an interest in real estate of which value can be predicated; Moore v. City of New York, 8 N. Y. 59 Am. Dee. 473. And although on the death of her hus band this right becomes consummate, it re mains a chose in action until assignment; 4 Kent ; Green v. Putnam, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 500; Johnson v. Shields, 32 Me. 424; Shield's Heirs v. Batts, 5 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 12; McClanahan v. Porter, 10 Mo. 746; Hit Leary v. Hilleary's Lessee, 26 Md. 289.
During coverture a wife has such an in terest in her husband's lands which have been conveyed by him without her joining in the deed, as will make a release by her a valuable consideration; Howlett v. Dills,
4 Ind. App. 23, 30 N. E. 313. See Brooks v. McMeekin, 37 S. C. 285, 15 S. E. 1019.
Until assignment, she has no estate which she can convey or which can be taken on execution for her debts; 2 Keen 527; Tomp kins v. Fonda, 4 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 448; Gooch v. Atkins, 14 Mass. 378; Summers v. Babb, 13 Ill. 483; Rausch v. Moore, 48 Ia. 611, 30 Am. Rep. 412 ; Webb v. Boyle, 63 N. C. 271; contra, Powell v. Powell, 10 Ala. 900.
But where she does sell or assign this right of action, equity will protect the rights of the assignee and sustain an action in the widow's name for his benefit; Lamar y. Scott, 4 Rich. (S. C.) 516; Powell v. Powell, 10 Ala. 900; Potter v. Everitt, 42 N. C. 152; Parton v. Allison, 109 N. C. 674, 14 S. E. 107. She may mortgage her undivided dow er interest, which is valid in equity ; Herr v. Herr, 90 Ia. 538, 58 N. W. 897.
She can release her claim to one who is in possession of the lands, or to whom she stands in privity of estate; Blain v. Harri son, 11 III. 384; Jackson v. Vanderheyden, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 167, 8 Am. Dec. 378; Johnson v. Shields, 32 Me. 424; Saltn3arsh v. Smith, 32 Ala. 404; Saunders v. Blythe, 112 Mo. 1, 20 S. W. 319 ; 8 L. R. Q. B. D. 31; Weaver v. Sturtevant, 12 R. I. 537.
But as soon as the premises have been set. out and assigned to her, and she has entered upon them, the freehold vests in her by vir tue of her husband's seisin; Co. Litt. 239 a; inhabitants of Windham v. Inhabitants of Portland, 4 Mass. 384; Norwood v. Marrow, 20 N. C. 578. Her estate is a continuation of her husband's by appointment of the law; Conant v. Little, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 189; Baker v. Baker, 4 Greenl. (Me.) 67; Love v; Mc Clure, 99 N. C. 290, 6 S. E. 247, 250.
The legislature may change the relative rights of husband and wife after marriage, and may substitute for inchoate dower an other and larger estate to be carved out of that of the husband after his death; Noel v. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37; but not after the hus band's death ; Bottorff v. Lewis, 121 Ia. 27, 95 N. W. 262; nor as against one who has contracted for a judgment lien on the hus band's property, although snch judgnIent was not entered until after the statute was ,passed; Davidson Richardson, 50 Or. 323,. 91. Pac. 1080, 17 _L. R. A. .(N, 319, 126 Am. St. Rep. 738. And it Is held that a stat Ate enlarging dower by extending It to the husbaild's equitable estate did not apply to a widow married before the statute was passed v. Hubner, 101 Md. 652, 61 Atl. 326.
See Scribner, Dower; Dembitz, Land Ti tles; Tudor ; Washburn ; Cruise; Tiedeman, Real Property; DIVORCE; ELECTION OF RIGHTS; ASSIGNMENT OF DOWER; QUARAN TINE.