Steele v. Magie

Citations

• 48 Ill. 396

Syllabus

<p>1. Dower—what is not such an equitable estate—as vests the wife with right of darner. W purchased certain premises from the State, in 1833, and before he had paid the purchase money in full, or obtained his patent, sold, and gave a contract for the same, to 0. C conveyed by warranty to S, in 1833, who, in turn, also conveyed the premises to another, in November of the same year. In July, 1836, W obtained his patent, and immediately conveyed the property to C, in pursuance of his contract. BMd, in a proceeding for dower, instituted by the widow of S, that the husband never acquired, in his own right, either the legal or equitable title to the premises, and hence, a right of dower did not accrue to his wife, the petitioner.</p> <p>2. Same. That the contract of W with the State, gave no estate in the premises, to which a right of dower would attach, and the transmission of the title to S passed no greater interest than W himself held.</p> <p>3. Former decisions. The cases of Owens v. Robbins, 19 Ill. 652; Woolley v. Magie, 26 ib. 528, and Stowe v. Steele, 45 Ill. 328, cited in support of this doctrine. The former case is not overruled by the latter, so far as regards incomplete equities.</p>