Putnam's Handy Law Book for the Layman

by Albert Sidney Bolles

Dower does not exist in crops or trees severed from the land, but does exist in mines and quarries belonging to the husband which were opened and worked during his life. If lands have been exchanged by the husband, she can elect in which she shall take her dower, but not in both. There can be no dower in a mere personal privilege, or in a revocable license pertaining to land. The widow of a partner is ordinarily entitled to dower in so much of the partnership land as is left after the payment of the firm's debts and the adjustment of matters between the partners. But if an agreement among them that the land shall be considered as personal property for all purposes, then no dower therein can be claimed by the widow of any partner.

A wife can release her inchoate dower or future expectation of receiving it by joining in a conveyance with her husband for that purpose. In order to make the election binding, it must be made with full knowledge on the widow's part of her husband's estate, and the relative value of her dower interest. The election is personal, and cannot be exercised by her representatives after her death, nor by creditors; and if insane, this cannot be done by any committee or guardian acting under the authority of a court.

An absolute divorce, even though for the husband's fault, divests the wife of dower, unless her right is saved by statute. Quite frequently, the statute provides that there shall be no dower in case of divorce for the wife's fault. Occasionally it is provided by statute that divorce for the husband's fault shall not bar dower; and sometimes a statute requires dower to be assigned immediately upon divorce without awaiting the husband's death. It may be added that the principles of the common law relating to dower have been largely modified by statute in all the states.

Drunkenness.—The courts are reluctant to recognize intoxication as an excuse either for committing a crime or for repudiating a contract, but if from long continued intemperate habits a man has become actually insane or incompetent, his actual mental condition will be recognized whatever may have produced it.

Again, in making a contract the other party could hardly deal with a man badly intoxicated without knowing his condition, consequently the element of fraud appears, and the contract may be declared invalid either for lack of contracting capacity on the part of the drunken man, or for fraud on the part of the other in taking advantage of his condition. His fraud would be still greater if he had designedly caused the drunkenness of the other. Either objection, however, renders the contract voidable rather than void, and should an intoxicated party, after he became sober ratify his contract, or fail to repudiate it and restore the consideration, if any, within a reasonable time, he would become bound.

The courts are still more reluctant to admit intoxication as an excuse for criminal acts. The courts hold that one who voluntarily deprives himself of self-control must have intended the consequences, therefore it is everywhere held that one who voluntarily becomes intoxicated, although he did so with no purpose to commit a crime when intoxicated, cannot claim immunity from criminal responsibility, or even a mitigation of the penalty, though having no capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. And yet, like so many legal rules, there are some marked exceptions to this one. Thus, since burglary is the entering of a house with the intent to commit a felony therein, one who blunders into a strange house because he is too drunk to know where he is or what he is doing has not committed the crime of burglary. So one who carried off the property of another through drunken ignorance does not commit larceny, as there is no intent in such a case to convert the property to the taker's own use. Another application has been made in cases of assault with intent to kill a person.

Again, says Peck, "if one is visibly intoxicated, it is the duty of those who come in contact with him to take his condition into account, and their use of due care will be judged in view of that fact. Even if the drunken person and the other are both negligent, the sober party may be liable under the doctrine of the last clear chance, if he fails to exercise toward the drunken man the degree of care which is evidently required to avoid injuring him. Especially is a common carrier, in dealing with a passenger who is on its car in an intoxicated condition, bound to take his helpless condition into account in removing him from the car or otherwise handling him, and not put him in a place of manifest danger to one in his condition."

It has also been held that the intoxication of one who uttered a slander may be admissible in mitigation of the damages, as utterances of a drunken man could not seriously impair the reputation of any one.

Equitable Remedies.—Elsewhere we have told how courts of law differ from courts of equity. In some states no separate courts exist, and wherever legal proceedings are established by a code or system of statute law, the form of complaint addressed to a court is quite the same in an equity case as in any other. But in states where code practice has not been established, the mode of setting forth one's grievance or wrong is by a bill or petition, ending with a prayer for relief. We will now briefly state some of the things for which relief in equity may be sought.

One of the most common things is to compel persons who refuse to perform their contracts to execute them. Suppose one has agreed in writing properly signed to sell his farm to another, but is unwilling to give him a deed. It may be that he can get more for his farm, or he has made the discovery since selling it that it is worth much more, is underlaid with coal or oil, or that a railway is soon to be built near it that will enhance its value. If he went to a law court, all that it could do would be to compel the seller to give the purchaser such damages as he could prove he had sustained from the seller's failure to execute his agreement. But a court of equity can go further and compel the seller to give the purchaser a proper deed, the kind of deed mentioned in the agreement; or, if none was specified, the kind of deed usually given in such cases.