
    Mary E. Talbot vs. Louis A. Talbot et als.
    
    A. died, leaving as his entire realty a house and messuage which was exclusively occupied by his widow until dower was assigned to her.
    
      Held, that the widow was only' entitled to nominal damages for tile detention of her dower.
    Dower. On exceptions to the report of the commissioners.
    
      June 18, 1881.
   Per Curiam.

This is an action of dower in which commissioners were appointed under Gen. Stat. R. I. cap. 218, § 11, to ascertain an annual sum to be paid as dower, together with damages for the detention thereof after demand. The commissioners reported an annual sum of $100, and ten cents damages for a little over eight months’ detention. The plaintiff excepts to the report for error in the matter of the damages, and contends that she is entitled to damages for the eight months at the rate of $100.00 per annum, though she admits that her late husband left no real estate except his mansion-house and the messuage belonging thereto, and that she has been in the exclusive use and occupation thereof ever since his decease. The question then is whether she is entitled to full damages for the detention when the result of the detention has been to leave her in the enjoyment of the entire estate, as of right under the statute. We think not. Having had more than her dower during the detention, she ought not to have full damages for the detention, the same as if she had had nothing. And so it was decided under a statute similar to ours in Perrine’s Executors v. Perrine, 35 Ala. 644, damages being given in that case only in respect of the estate not occupied by the widow.

James Gr. Marlcland, for demandant.

Oscar Lapham, for tenants.

The exception will therefore be overruled and judgment rendered in accordance with the report.

Order in final judgment entered June 24, 1881: “And now, to wit, on the sixty-ninth day of said term, upon reading the report of the commissioners appointed by the court to ascertain the dower of the plaintiff and her damages, filed in the cleric’s office on the 25th day of February, a. d. 1881, and the exception of the plaintiff to the said report filed in said office on the 23d day of March, A. D. 1881, and hearing what was alleged by the counsel for the respective parties, it is considered that the said report do stand confirmed, and that the plaintiff do recover against the defendants as well her seisin of a third part of the rents, issues, and profits of the freehold in her writ and declaration mentioned, to hold to her in severalty to the amount or value of one hundred dollars per annum, as the sum of ten cents for her damages by the said commissioners ascertained to have been by her sustained on occasion of the detention of her dower, and also her costs of this suit, to be taxed by the clerh. And hereupon the plaintiff prays a writ of execution for such damages and to put the plaintiff in perception of said one third part of said rents, issues, and profits to the amount or value aforesaid, and it is granted to her issur able and returnable according to law.”  