Property · MBE-tested

JAMES GRAHAM vs. TINCEY MOORE

5 Del. 3185 Harr. 318·Delaware Superior Court·1851·DE

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

JAMES GRAHAM vs. TINCEY MOORE. Dower, before assignment, may not be taken in execution. Rule to show cause why a sale of land should not be set aside. [MAJORITY] The property sold in this case was the right of Tincey Moore, as tenant in dower, in the lands of her late husband; and the dower had not been laid off. Cullen, for the rule. Saulsbury and McFee, contra. Graham was the purchaser; and now objected to the sale, because he could get no .title ; the dower (not assigned) being no estate liable to be levied on or sold. (13 Wend. Rep., 524; 10 Ib., 414, 528; 2 Cowen's Rep., 638; 1 Cruise Dig., 131, 194-5; 14 Mass. Rep., 378.) Mr. Saulsbury said, caveat emptor; but the court set aside the sale. Rule absolute.