{
  "id": 11277545,
  "name": "WINNIFRED A. ROSE v. ROBERT E. ROSE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rose v. Rose",
  "decision_date": "1869-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "391",
  "last_page": "393",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 391"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "6 How. 301",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "How.",
      "case_ids": [
        3349030
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "330"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/47/0301-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 How. 311",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "How.",
      "case_ids": [
        3325053
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/42/0311-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Doug. (Mich.) 197",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Doug.",
      "case_ids": [
        232134
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/doug/2/0197-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 275,
    "char_count": 4430,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.437,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2505353337630937e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7815015470013889
    },
    "sha256": "a19195ef9cb00a1d235874501a7daa0d8ecebd48ab9518e590c03e45f0d897ec",
    "simhash": "1:c7381fc0224c20d3",
    "word_count": 812
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WINNIFRED A. ROSE v. ROBERT E. ROSE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PearsoN, C. J.\nAt common law, a widow was entitled to dower in all the land, of which her husband was seized at any time during tlw coverture, of such an estate of inheritance, she might have had a child capable of inheriting.\nThe statute under consideration, restores to married women their common law right of dower; it was ratified 2nd March 1867. The deed, under which the defendant claims, was executed 25th March 1867. So the right of the plaintiff to have dower in the land had attached, before the defendant acquired title, and we can see no reason why he did not take the land, subject to the prior right of the plaintiff.\nSuppose the husband had, on the 25th of March 1867, executed a deed for the land to the defendant, and had received the purchase money in cash, and the wife had not joined in the deed and released her fight of dower on privy examination, beyond question the purchaser would have taken, subject to the right of the wife; nor would the case have been varied, if the husband had received an old debt in satisfaction of the purchase money, instead of the cash; and the case can be no \u25a0stronger in favor of one who is a purchaser for the' consideration of one dollar, and takes the land upon trust to sell and \u25a0apply the proceeds of sale to the discharge of an old debt. The principle is the same in the three cases \u2014 the bargainee takes by act of the husband, and claims under him. In the husband\u2019s .hands, the land was subject to the wife\u2019s right of dower; and \u2022of course it must also be subject to it in the hands of the bar-gainee of the husband, without reference to what he accepted \u2022as the consideration: for with that the wife had no concern. If, in either of the three cases, the husband had \u00bfconveyed before the passage of the act, the purchaser having acquired title, might have stood on his \u201c vested right,\u201d as being prior to the claim of the wife, but in our case, the right of the wife had attached to the land, before the conveyance. Note the \u2022diversity.\nThus it is seen, that the point as to the constitutionality of the statute in respect to pre-existing debts, is not presented by the case, and we can give no opinion on it \u2014 had the creditors taken judgment, and sold the land under execution, the purchaser at sheriff\u2019s sale might have raised the question, as he would come in by act of law; here he comes in by act of the husband, and takes his place.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PearsoN, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Eaton & Barham, for the appellant.",
      "W. A. Jenkins and Phillips & Battle,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WINNIFRED A. ROSE v. ROBERT E. ROSE.\nWhere the wife\u2019s right to dower in all the lands of which her husband was seized during coverture, by virtue of the act of March 2nd 1867, had attached before the execution of a deed of trust, Held, that, as the bar-gainor took by act of the husband and claimed under him, the land was subject to the wife\u2019s right of dower, even although the deed was made to secure a pre-existing debt.\nIf the bargainor had come in by act of law, as purchaser at Sheriff\u2019s sale, under an execution against the husband, the question of the constitutionality of the act of March 2nd 1867, in regard to pre-existing debts, might have been raised.\nPETITION for Dower, heard by Fowle, J., at Fall Term 1867, -of the Superior Court of Warren.\nThe plaintiff as widow of one William P. Rose, filed her petition against the defendant at Fall Term 1867, praying for dower in the land, as that of which her husband had been seized during coverture.\nThe defendant claimed the land by virtue of a deed of trust executed to him by the intestate March 25th 1867, and registered on the same day. The deed was made to secure a bond executed by the intestate as principal, and the defendant as surety. The petitioner claimed dower by virtue of the act of .March 2nd 1867, entitled \u201c An act restoring to married women \u25a0their common law right of dower,\u201d which the defendant insisted was unconstitutional and void, so far as the said deed \u25a0of trust was concerned; that being a deed to secure a debt \u25a0contracted before its passage.\nThe case was submitted to the judgment of the Court upon the above facts agreed.\nJudgment for the plaintiff; from which the defendant appealed.\nEaton & Barham, for the appellant.\nW. A. Jenkins and Phillips & Battle,\ncited 2 Pars, on Cont. 704, n. (b.), Ib. 705, and cases cited in n. (f.), Morse v. Gould, 1 Kern. 281; BockweU v. Hubbell, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 197; Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311; Planter\u2019s Bank v. Sharp, 6 How. 301, 330; Potts v. Blackwell, 4 Jon. Eq. 58."
  },
  "file_name": "0391-01",
  "first_page_order": 407,
  "last_page_order": 409
}