
    Jacob Sheafe versus Mary O’Neil
    To a writ of entry sur disseisin, it is no sufficient answer, as to an undivided third part of the demanded premises, that the tenant was entitled to her dower in the premises, and had entered, and still possesses, as tenant in dower; no assignment of her dower having been legally made.
    Entry sur disseisin. The demandant counts on his own seisin within thirty years, and on a disseisin by the tenant, who pleads in bar as to one undivided third part of the demanded premises, that 
      James O'Neil, her late husband, before the seisin of the demand-ant, and during the coverture of the said James and Mary, was seised in fee of the demanded premises, and afterwards the said James died, the said Mary never having parted with her right of * dower in the premises; whereupon she entered into the said undivided third part as tenant in dower, and still possesses the same as tenant in dower; and as to the other two third parts, she disclaims. — The demandant replies the alienage of the tenant, as being a British subject; to which the tenant rejoins the treaty of 1794 between Great Britain and the United States.— The demandant demurs generally, and the tenant joins in demurrer.
   The Court observed that a tenant in dower was not seised of an undivided third part; nor could the tenant in this case defend against this action, unless her dower had been legally assigned to her. — The pleadings were then withdrawn by consent, and the tenant was defaulted.

Mellen and Lyman for the demandant.

Holmes for the tenant.  