
    Nelly Pixley versus Caleb Bennett.
    It is no defence to a demand of dower that the demandant has released her right to a stranger.
    This was a writ of dower unde nihil habet, in which the said Nelly demands her reasonable dower in certain lands situate in the town of Lee, in this county, of which her late husband, Clark Pixley, was seised in fee during the coverture.
    * The tenant pleads in bar that the demandant, on [ * 299 j the Idth of October, 1809, by her deed of that date, scaled, &c., and in Court to be produced, for a valuable consideration, remised, released, and forever quitclaimed, to the said Caleb all claim or demand on account of dower, or any claim to the premises described.
    The demandant craves oyer of the said deed, which being had, the deed purported, in consideration of 35 dollars paid to the demandant by John Freeze, of Lee, and Timothy Edwards, of Stock-bridge, to give, grant, bargain, sell, alien, release, convey, and confirm, to the said John and Timothy, their heirs, &c., all her right of dower in all the lands of her said late husband, lying in the town of Lee, in equal moieties, with full power to demand and possess the same, with a covenant of warranty against all persons claiming under her. Dated October 14, 1809. And thereupon the demandant demurs to the tenant’s said plea in bar; and the tenanf joins in demurrer.
    
      
      Mills, for the tenant,
    contended that this deed, though not made to the tenant, was an effectual bar to the demandant’s claim of dower in any of her husband’s lands in Lee. Having once released her claim, she is forever estopped to demand dower, whoever may be in possession of the lands.
    
      Whiting for the demandant.
   By the Court.

The deed relied on to bar the demandant shows no privity of estate, or connection of any kind between her and the tenant. It cannot avail the tenant in this action.

Plea in bar adjudged bad. 
      
      
        Dewey, J., having been of counsel in this cause, did not sit in the hearing or adjudication thereof.
     
      
      
         Park on Dower, 334. — Gooch vs. Atkins, 14 Mass. Rep. 378. — Gould vs. Newman, 6 Mass. Rep. 239. — Davis vs. Hayden & Al. 9 Mass. Rep. 514.— Gibson vs. Crehore, 5 Pick. 146.
     