Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/134

This page needs to be proofread.

I28 Cases ruled and adjudged in the W9;. ria:. That, in the latter cafe, the at]: (1 V¤l.·DaIl. Edit?. p. 7 t. 2.) t/asl direé`ts that no reater e{l:ate {hall be conveyed than the lands are mortgaged En : And in this cafe the woman had not done any aélc to bar ber ehate in the lands. He added that in New- ]'n:/2-;, where the a& of Ailembly was very limilar,`the wife was always held to be entitled to dower. }Wl¢—a¢·L.¢, after {tating that at Cbefzr, in the cafe of Howell waghu Laym.-L, it was determined that a {ale by an Executor, to whom lands were devifed for the payment of debts, barred the widow's dower, would have proceeded ; but, Br THE Comrr:-The point has been too long {`ettled to be {lirrcd new ; and judgment mufl: be for the dyndant. T1-roursou wp: Traourson. · IBEL for a divorce a mmf}: rt tbora, charging the de- IJ fendant with various a&s of cruelty, and indignities, that rendered the Libellant’s {ituation infupportable. Defendant, pro· fg/funds, 8tc. pleaded,that before the filing of the {`aid libel,his wife (the libellant) had {eparated herfelf from him, and that “ he had ollizred to receive and cohabit with her again, and ufe her as a good hufhand ought to do." To this plea the defendant demur- red. Tilgbmrm, in fupport of it, contended, that by the a£l; of A{l`embly “ conceming Diwrm and .dlimany"{z Val. Dal!.Edit. p. 38 t .j the Court were obliged eithertofufpend, orto difcharge, any {`entence, {`eparating hufband and wife, from bed and board, whenever the hufband {hould make the offer, that was {lated in the anfwer : And that if this was a good rea{`0n to annul a fentence, njbrliari it is afullicient anfwer to the complaint of this libel. '1 his too, he added, was agreeable to the praéftice of the fpiritu- al Court in Eng/and. Prem]. Clvzme. 495. Augier ·v. Angier : Where, it is faid, that Alimony continued no longer than till the parties became reconciled, and confented to cohabit. Szrjeanl, for the libellant, iniilled, that the Court had a dif- cretion to {ufpend, or annul, the fentence, as the circumllances, under which the offer {hould be made,. required ; or to refufc to do either : And that, at all events, {uch an offer as was {lated in the libel, made before {`entence, could not prevent the jurif- diftion of the Court, or a feparation, where {uch extreme cru- elty was {lated to have been ufed by the hufband. 2[`mz Courvr inclined to think, that even after {entence, the mere offer of the hulhand would not, in all cafes, be a eaufe for fufpending it; and that the af} left them a difcretion, upon the offer beingymadc, to hear the wife, and to continue the {cntcnce lu