Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Mary H. Powers, Respondent, v. Jacob S. Jackson et al., Appellants, 1874 — 57 N.Y. 654 · caselaw · US
General
Mary H. Powers, Respondent, v. Jacob S. Jackson et al., Appellants
57 N.Y. 654·New York Commission of Appeals·1874·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Mary H. Powers, Respondent, v. Jacob S. Jackson et al., Appellants.
(Argued January 9, 1874;
decided May term, 1874.)
This was an action for partition ; the only question was as to the right of dower of the wife, co-defendant. The facts are substantially the same as in House v. Jackson (50 N. Y., 161), save that there the claimant of the dower right was a widow. The defendants intermarried before the rendition of the judgment under which the plaintiff claimed title. The judgment below gave the wife an inchoate dower right in one-eleventh of the land in suit. Decided upon authority of House v. Jackson (supra).
Everett P. Wheeler for the appellants.
D. P. Barnard for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Dwight, C.,]
Dwight, C.,
reads for affirmance of judgment as to defendant Jacob S. Jackson, and for reversal as to defendant Christiana Jackson, and for judgment awarding her an inchoate right of dower in the whole of the premises.
All concur.
Judgment accordingly.