TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Boyles v. Latham

Boyles v. Latham, 16 N.W. 68 (Iowa 1883)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 8, 1883
Judges
Adams
Citations
16 N.W. 6861 Iowa 174
Headnotes
1. Divorce: cuts off right of dower. A woman who has been divorced from her husband cannot, after his death, maintain an action for dower in lands conveyed by the husband before the divorce, and in which she at no time relinquished her dower. Divorce cuts off all right to dower. Marvin v. Marvin 59 Iowa, 699, followed.
Summary
Appeal from Madison Circuit Court. Action in equity for the assignment of the alleged distributive share of the plaintiff, Annetta Boyles, in certain land in Madison county. She claims the same as distributee of the estate of one William II, Marble, deceased. The petition shows that the plaintiff was at one time the wife of Marble; that while she was his wife he became the owner of the land in question; that afterward, and while she was still his wife, he sold and conveyed-the land to the defendant, Jesse Latham; that she did not join in the deed and has made no relinquishment of her rights. The defendants for answer, aver among other things, that in December, 1875, the plaintiff procured a divorce from Marble in the state of Illinois, and was not the wife of Marble at the time he died. 1 To the answer the plaintiff demurred, and the demurrer was overruled, and from the order overruling the demurrer the plaintiff appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Adams

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Adams, J.

— In Marvin v. Marvin, 59 Iowa, 699 , the plaintiff had procured a divorce from her husband in the state of Ohio. He afterward died, leaving certain real estate in Iowa. She brought her action against the heirs for the purpose of obtaining her distributive share. It was held that, the marriage relation having been dissolved prior to his death, she was not distributee of his estate. The question in the case at bar differs in no material respect from the question decided in that case. The considerations urged against the correctness of the ruling in Marvin v. Marvin have been fully considered, but they are not such as to satisfy us that the case should- be overruled.

We think that the answer showed a good defense, and that the demurrer was properly overruled.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1911: 11921: 11925: 11926: 12013: 119112026peak 1911 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Darby v. Darby277 S.W. 894 (Tenn. 1925)
  2. United States v. Schippers982 F. Supp. 2d 948 (S.D. Iowa 2013)
  3. Hamilton v. McNeill129 N.W. 480 (Iowa 1911)
  4. McCoy v. McCoy191 Iowa 973 (1921)
  5. Doeksen v. Doeksen210 N.W. 545 (Iowa 1926)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Schippers982 F. Supp. 2d 948 (S.D. Iowa 2013)
  2. Doeksen v. Doeksen210 N.W. 545 (Iowa 1926)
  3. Darby v. Darby277 S.W. 894 (Tenn. 1925)
  4. McCoy v. McCoy191 Iowa 973 (1921)
  5. Hamilton v. McNeill129 N.W. 480 (Iowa 1911)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Marvin v. Marvin, 13 N.W. 851 (Iowa 1882) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list