ed tenancy by "curtesy," or, by some of the older writers, "tenancy by the law of England," or "by the curtesy of England." 31 The origin of the estate, and even of the word "curtesy," is, however, obscure.32

Requisites-Marriage

The first requisite of curtesy is lawful marriage. If the marriage was absolutely void, no curtesy will attach; but if it is only voidable, and is not annulled during the wife's life, then the husband will be entitled to the estate.33

Birth of Issue

Another requisite of the common-law estate by curtesy is the birth of legitimate issue. The issue must be born alive,35 and it must be capable of inheriting the mother's estate. Thus, the

36

Fed. Cas. No. 13,468, 1 Sumn. 263; Co. Litt. § 30a; Schermerhorn v. Miller, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 439; Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 182; Rawlings v. Adams, 7 Md. 26; Foster v. Marshall, 22 N. H. 491; Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. & P. 652, note. The husband and wife are seised jointly. Guion v. Anderson, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 298; Junction R. Co. v. Harris, 9 Ind. 184, 68 Am. Dec. 618; Wass v. Bucknam, 38 Me. 356.

31 Britton, 1, 220; Co. Litt. 29a, § 35; 2 Blk. Comm. 126, 127. And see P. & M. II, 412, 413; Alexander v. Warrance, 17 Mo. 228.

32 Blackstone derives "curtesy" from "curialitas"; that is, an attendance upon the lord's court or "curtis." 2 Blk. Comm. 126, 127. This derivation is very improbable, however. See P. & M. II, 412. Coke says that the estate is of English origin. Co. Litt. 29a, § 35. There was, however, an analogous custom in Normandy (P. & M. II, 413), and there is a possibility that the origin goes back to the Roman law. In the time of Constantine, the law gave the father a life interest in all property coming to the son, through the mother. See Scrutton, Roman Law and The Law of England, 98; Codex, 6, 60, 2; Wright, Ten. 194. The custom seems to be unknown in Saxon times.

23 2 Blk. Comm. 127; 1 Cruise, Dig. 107; 1 Washb. Real Prop. (6th Ed.) § 318; Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793, 48 Am. Dec. 76.

34 Schermerhorn v. Miller, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 439; Comer v. Chamberlain, 6 Allen (Mass.) 166; Ryan v. Freeman, 36 Miss. 175. A child born out of wedlock, but made legitimate by force of statute, by a subsequent marriage, gives curtesy. Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965. Such is not, however, the English law.

35 Nicrosi v. Phillipi, 91 Ala. 299, 8 South. 561; Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 35, 21 Am. Dec. 66; Comer v. Chamberlain, 6 Allen (Mass.) 166; Brock v. Kellock, 30 Law J. Ch. 498; Goff v. Anderson, 91 Ky. 303, 15 S. W. 866, 12 Ky. Law Rep. 888, 11 L. R. A. 825; In re Winne, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 508; Ryan v. Freeman, 36 Miss. 175; Doe ex dem. Barrett v. Roe, 5 Houst. (Del.) 14; Goff v. Anderson, 91 Ky. 303, 15 S. W. 866, 12 Ky. Law Rep. 888, 11 L. R. A. 825.

36 Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 228; Sumner v. Partridge, 2 Atk. 47, 26 Eng. Reprint. 425; Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261; Janney v. Sprigg, 7 Gill (Md.) 197, 48 Am. Dec. 557.

birth of a daughter would give the husband no curtesy in lands of which the wife was tenant in tail male, because the daughter could not inherit the estate.87 Moreover, the issue must be born during the wife's life; that is, it will not be sufficient, to give curtesy, if the mother die in childbirth, and the child is afterwards delivered by the Cæsarean operation. It is immaterial, however, whether the birth of issue is before or after the wife's estate is acquired. Curtesy will not be defeated by the subsequent death of the issue, either in the mother's lifetime or after her death.** In several states the birth of issue is made unnecessary by statute. 41

39

Sufficient Seisin During Coverture

43

42

By the strict common-law rule, in order that the husband might have curtesy, it was essential that the wife be seised in fact,12 or, as otherwise expressed, that she have actual seisin, rule is followed in some states at the present time.** in many states, the rule as to seisin in fact has been relaxed,

and this However,

45

37 Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261; Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 228, 236; Barker v. Barker, 2 Sim. 249; Sumner v. Partridge, 2 Atk. 46.

38 Co. Litt. 29b; Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 42, 21 Am. Dec. 66; In re Winne, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 508; Paine's Case, 8 Coke, 34a. 39 Co. Litt. 29b; 2 Blk. Comm. 128; Jackson ex dem. Swartwout v. Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74, 15 Am. Dec. 433; Comer v. Chamberlain, 6 Allen (Mass.) 166; Guion v. Anderson, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 307; Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 236; Witham v. Perkins, 2 Me. 400. Cf. Hathon v. Lyon, 2 Mich. 93. 40 Co. Litt. 29b; 2 Blk. Comm. 128; Jackson ex dem. Swartwout v. Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74, 15 Am. Dec. 433; Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 235; Foster v. Marshall, 22 N. H. 491,

41 Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Neb. 520, 1 N. W. 571; Hershizer v. Florence, 39 Ohio St. 516; McMasters v. Negley, 152 Pa. 303, 25 Atl. 641; 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 3301 B; Kingsley v. Smith, 14 Wis. 360.

42 Hopper v. Demarest, 21 N. J. Law, 525; Wescott v. Miller, 42 Wis. 454. The reason assigned for this is that the husband can at any time perfect the wife's seisin by making an entry. 2 Ham. Blk. Comm. 233, note 32; Vanarsdall v. Fauntleroy's Heirs, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 401; Mercer v. Selden, 1 How. 37, 11 L. Ed. 38.

43 Co. Litt. 29a; Stinebaugh v. Wisdom, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 467; Parker v. Carter, 4 Hare, 400, 416; Davis v. Mason, 1 Pet. 507, 7 L. Ed. 239.

44 See Petty v. Malier, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 591; Hopper v. Demarest, 21 N. J. Law, 525; Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch, 229, 3 L. Ed. 545.

45 Furguson v. Tweedy, 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 168; Davis v. Mason, 1 Pet. 503, 7 L. Ed. 239; Wass v. Bucknam, 38 Me. 356; Reaume v. Chambers, 22 Mo. 36, 54; Bush v. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.) 298; Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494; Mitchell's Lessee v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377; Powell v. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 179; Ellsworth v. Cook, 8 Paige (N. Y.) 643; Mercer v. Selden, 1 How. 37, 11 L. Ed. 38; McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 267, 39 Am. Dec. 165; Adams v. Logan, 6 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 175; Watkins v. Thornton, 11 Ohio St. 367; Rabb v. Griffin, 26 Miss. 579; Childers v. Bumgarner, 53 N. C. 297.

48

47

46

and seisin in law is held sufficient to give curtesy, particularly in the case of the wife's taking by descent, or where the land is wild and unoccupied, or where there is no adverse possession. The seisin of a lessee is regarded as the seisin of the wife, as is also the seisin of a cotenant.50 The seisin is sufficient if it occurs at any time during coverture, whether before or after the birth of issue.51 The rule as to actual seisin does not apply, moreover, to incorporeal hereditaments, of which no actual possession is possible.52

Death of Wife

The fourth and final requisite is that the wife must die prior to the death of the husband.53

46 Borland's Lessee v. Marshall, 2 Ohio St. 308; Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261; Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 182; Jackson ex dem. Swartwout v. Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74, 15 Am. Dec. 433; Chew v. Commissioners, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160; Stephens v. Hume, 25 Mo. 349; Harvey v. Wickham, 23 Mo. 115; Carr v. Givens, 9 Bush (Ky.) 679, 15 Am. Rep. 747; Ellis v. Dittey (Ky.) 23 S. W. 366; Merritt's Lessee v. Horne, 5 Ohio St. 307, 67 Am. Dec. 298; Eager v. Furnivall, 17 Ch. Div. 115; Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 597; McKee v. Cottle, 6 Mo. App. 416.

47 Furguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. 543; Wescott v. Miller, 42 Wis. 454; Mercer v. Selden, 1 How. 37, 11 L. Ed. 38; Jackson v. Sellick, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 262; Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch, 249, 3 L. Ed. 545; Davis v. Mason, 1 Pet. 503, 7 L. Ed. 239; Mettler v. Miller, 129 Ill. 630, 22 N. E. 529; Barr v. Galloway, 1 McLean, 476, Fed. Cas. No. 1,037; Den ex dem. Pierce v. Wanett, 32 N. C. 446; McDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 465; Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261; Clay v. White, 1 Munf. (Va.) 162; De Grey v. Richardson, 3 Atk. 469; Lowry's Lessee v. Steele, 4 Ohio, 170; Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793, 48 Am. Dec. 76; Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 161, 90 Am. Dec. 320. Contra, Neely v. Butler, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 48.

48 Todd v. Oviatt, 58 Conn. 174, 20 Atl. 440, 7 L. R. A. 693; Mettler v. Miller, 129 Ill. 630, 22 N. E. 529; Stephens v. Hume, 25 Mo. 349; Buchanan v. Duncan, 40 Pa. 82.

De Grey v. Richardson, 3 Atk. 469. Or of a tenant at sufferance. Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 388; Jackson ex dem. Swartwout v. Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74, 15 Am. Dec. 433; Lowry's Lessee v. Steele, 4 Ohio, 170; Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch, 245, 3 L. Ed. 545; Powell v. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 179; Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261; Carter v. Williams, 43 N. C. 177; Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793, 48 Am. Dec. 76.

50 Carr v. Givens, 9 Bush (Ky.) 679, 15 Am. Rep. 747; Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 43.

51 Comer v. Chamberlain, 6 Allen (Mass.) 166; Jackson ex dem. Swartwout v. Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74, 15 Am. Dec. 433; Templeton v. Twitty, SS Tenn. 595, 14 S. W. 435. But see Gentry v. Wagstaff, 14 N. C. 270.

52 Co. Litt. 29a; Davis v. Mason, 1 Pet. 507, 7 L. Ed. 239; Jackson v. Sellick, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 262; Mercer v. Selden, 1 How. 37, 11 L. Ed. 38; Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. & P. 652, note. And see Eager v. Furnivall, 17 Ch. D. 115.

53 Wheeler v. Hotchkiss, 10 Conn. 225; Porch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. 204; Jackson ex dem. Swartwout v. Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74, 15 Am. Dec. 433.

Curtesy Initiate and Consummate

54

The husband's right to curtesy is said to be initiate as soon as there is issue of the marriage, such issue being capable of inheriting. When this right attaches to the lands of the wife, it is a vested interest, which cannot be taken away by the legislature.55 Upon the death of the wife, prior to the husband's decease, the husband's curtesy is consummate." without any assignment or other formality.57 Curtesy, having vested in the husband, cannot be defeated by a disclaimer.58

SAME ESTATES SUBJECT TO CURTESY

49. The husband is entitled to curtesy in the following estates: (a) Estates of inheritance, in general.

(b) Equitable estates.

(c) Estates in expectancy, when they vest in possession during the wife's life.

(d) Joint estates, except joint tenancies.

(e) Determinate estates, when they are determined by a shifting use or executory devise, and in all cases until they are defeated.

Estates of Inheritance

As already seen, a husband has curtesy only in the wife's estates of inheritance, since her estates not of inheritance end with the death of the wife, and there is nothing left out of which the husband could have curtesy. In other words, a fee simple or a fee tail in the wife gives the husband curtesy, but a life estate

59

54 2 Blk. Comm. 127; FOSTER v. MARSHALL, 22 N. H. 491, Burdick Cas. Real Property; Nicholls v. O'Neill, 10 N. J. Eq. 88; Billings v. Baker, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 343; Lancaster County Bank v. Stauffer, 10 Pa. 398; Schermerhorn v. Miller, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 439; Comer v. Chamberlain, 6 Allen (Mass.) 166. A child born out of wedlock, but made legitimate by a subsequent marriage, gives curtesy. Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965.

55 Clay v. Mayr, 144 Mo. 376, 46 S. W. 157; Wyatt v. Smith, 25 W. Va. 813; Hitz v. National Metropolitan Bank, 111 U. S. 722, 4 Sup. Ct. 613, 28 L. Ed. 577.

56 Jackson v. Jackson, 144 Ill. 274, 33 N. E. 51, 36 Am. St. Rep. 427; McNeer v. McNeer, 142 Ill. 388, 32 N. E. 681, 19 L. R. A. 256; Gamble's Estate, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 489.

57 Co. Litt. 30a; 2 Blk. Comm. 128.

58 Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. 83.

59 Northcut v. Whipp, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 65; Thornton's Ex'rs v. Krepps, 37 Pa. 391; Barker v. Barker, 2 Sim. 249; Sumner v. Partridge, 2 Atk. 47; Janney v. Sprigg, 7 Gill (Md.) 197, 48 Am. Dec. 557. If the wife was tenant

60

does not. By statute, however, a husband may be entitled to curtesy in the leasehold estates of his wife."1 The husband's curtesy attaches, likewise, to the wife's inheritable statutory separate estates, provided, where she is given power to dispose of the same, she leaves them undisposed of by will. In her inheritable. legal estates, settled upon her by express limitation, he has also his right of curtesy.63

Equitable Estates

62

Curtesy attaches to the beneficial interest of the wife in equitable estates of inheritance, as well as to legal interests, and this rule

64

in tail, and died leaving no issue, still the husband would take curtesy, providing issue capable of inheriting had been born, because the estate had been one of inheritance. Paine's Case, 8 Coke, 34; Buchannan's Lessee v. Sheffer, 2 Yeates (Pa.) 374; Hay v. Mayer, 8 Watts (Pa.) 203, 34 Am. Dec. 453; Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. & P. 652, note; Holden v. Wells, 18 R. I. 802, 31 Atl. 265.

6 Janney v. Sprigg, 7 Gill (Md.) 197, 48 Am. Dec. 557; Spencer v. O'Neill, 100 Mo. 49, 12 S. W. 1054; Adams v. Ross, 30 N. J. Law, 505, 82 Am. Dec. 237. 61 Murdock v. Reed, 1 Disn. (Ohio) 274.

62 Brown v. Clark, 44 Mich. 309, 6 N. W. 679; Johnson v. Cummins, 16 N. J. Eq. 97, 84 Am. Dec. 142; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280; Burke v. Valentine, 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 412; Rouse's Estate v. Directors of Poor, 169 Pa. 116, 32 Atl. 541; Guernsey v. Lazear, 51 W. Va. 328, 41 S. E. 405; Kingsley v. Smith, 14 Wis. 360; Smith v. Colvin, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 157; BOZARTH v. LARGENT, 128 III. 95, 21 N. E. 218, Burdick Cas. Real Property.

63 Luntz v. Greve, 102 Ind. 173, 26 N. E. 128; Rank v. Rank, 120 Pa. 191, 13 Atl. 827; Freyvogle v. Hughes, 56 Pa. 228. But see Sayers v. Wall, 26 Grat. (Va.) 354, 21 Am. Rep. 303.

64 Meacham v. Bunting, 156 Ill. 586, 41 N. E. 175, 28 L. R. A. 618, 47 Am. St. Rep. 239; Davis v. Mason, 1 Pet. 503, 7 L. Ed. 239; Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 138; Young v. Langbein, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 151; Alexander v. Warrance, 17 Mo. 228; Dubs v. Dubs, 31 Pa. 149; Ege v. Medlar, 82 Pa. 86; Rawlings v. Adams, 7 Md. 26; Pierce v. Hakes, 23 Pa. 231; Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 641; Norman's Ex'x v. Cunningham, 5 Grat. (Va.) 63; Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. I. 383; Robie v. Chapman, 59 N. H. 41; Nightingale v. Hidden, 7 R. I. 115; Sentill v. Robeson, 55 N. C. 510; Cushing v. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. 689; Carson v. Fuhs, 131 Pa. 256, 18 Atl. 1017; Gilmore v. Burch, 7 Or. 374, 33 Am. Rep. 710; Ogden v. Ogden, 60 Ark. 70, 28 S. W. 796, 46 Am. St. Rep. 151. But see Hall v. Crabb, 56 Neb. 392, 76 N. W. 865. Receipt by the wife of the rents and profits is a sufficient seisin. Hearle v. Greenbank, 3 Atk. 717; Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 597; Powell v. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 179; Cushing v. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. 689; Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 138; Taylor v. Smith, 54 Miss. 50; Sentill v. Robeson, 55 N. C. 510. So the husband may have curtesy in the proceeds of sale of the wife's land, Clepper v. Livergood, 5 Watts (Pa.) 113; Houghton v. Hapgood, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 154; Forbes v. Smith, 43 N. C. 369; Dunscomb v. Dunscomb, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 508, 7 Am. Dec. 504; Williams' Case, 3 Bland (Md.) 186; and in money directed to be laid out in land, Sweetapple v. Bindon, 2 Vern. 536; Dodson v. Hay, 3 Brown, Ch. 404; Cunningham v. Moody, 1 Ves. Sr. 174;