Page:William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (3rd ed, 1768, vol II).djvu/144

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
132
The Rights
Book II.

him the eſtate conveys it alſo out of him again, (as where by a fine land is granted to a man, and he immediately renders it back by the ſame fine) ſuch a ſeiſin will not intitle the wife to dower[1]: for the land was merely in tranſitu, and never reſted in the huſband. But, if the land abides in him for a ſingle moment, it ſeems that the wife ſhall be endowed thereof[2]. And, in ſhort, a widow may be endowed of all her huſband's lands, tenements, and hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, under the reſtrictions before-mentioned; unleſs there be ſome ſpecial reaſon to the contrary. Thus, a woman ſhall not be endowed of a caſtle, built for defence of the realm[3]: nor of a common without ſtint; for, as the heir would then have one portion of this common, and the widow another, and both without ſtint, the common would be doubly ſtocked[4]. Copyhold eſtates alſo are not liable to dower, being only eſtates at the lord's will; unleſs by the ſpecial cuſtom of the manor, in which caſe it is uſually called the widow's free-bench[5]. But, where dower is allowable, it matters not, though the huſband aliene the lands during the coverture; for he alienes them liable to dower[6].

3. Next, as to the manner in which a woman is to be endowed. There are now ſubſiſting four ſpecies of dower; the fifth, mentioned by Littleton[7], de la plus belle, having been aboliſhed together with the military tenures, of which it was a conſequence. 1. Dower by the common law; or that which is before deſcribed. 2. Dower by particular cuſtom[8]; as that the wife ſhall have half the huſband's lands, or in ſome places the whole, and in ſome only a quarter. 3. Dower ad oſtium eccleſiae[9]: which is

  1. Cro. Jac. 615. 2 Rep. 67. Co. Litt. 31.
  2. This doctrine was extended very far by a jury in Wales, where the father and ſon were both hanged in one cart, but the ſon was ſuppoſed to have ſurvived the father, by appearing to ſtruggle longeſt: whereby he became ſeized of an eſtate by ſurvivorſhip, in conſequence of which ſeiſin his widow had a verdict for her dower. (Cro. Eliz. 503.)
  3. Co. Litt. 31. 3 Lev. 401.
  4. Co. Litt. 32. 1 Jon. 315.
  5. 4 Rep. 22.
  6. Co. Litt. 32.
  7. §. 48, 49.
  8. Litt. §. 37.
  9. Ibid. §. 39.
where