
    Philip Forgey, plaintiff in error, against Sarah Sutliff, defendant in error.
    The widow of an alien purchaser, under the statute, (2 R. L. 542,) takes her dower as purchaser, within the meaning of that act, according to Sttiliff v. Forgey, 1 Cowen’s Rep. 89 to 97.
    On error from the Supreme Court. The action in that court was dower unde nihil habet by the present defendant against the plaintiff in error. And judgment was there for the demandant upon the case, and for the reasons given by the Supreme Court, as reported in 1 Cowen’s Reports, 89 to 97.
    
      S. Stevens, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      J. Crary, for the defendant in error.
   Sanford, Chancellor, and Golden, Senator, delivered opinions here, in which they concurred with the court below, that the demandant took her dower as purchaser within the meaning and construction of the act of 1802, (2 R. L. 542.) And the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed by the whole court; except Lynde and Redfield, Senators, who were for reversal.

Judgment affirmed.  