
    THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA,
    
      Decisions Rendered December 15, 1885.
    
    REPORTED BY J. H. LUMPKIN, REPORTER
    Harris vs. Coats.
    Dower, prosí Pike. Estates. Tenants. Husband and Wife. Dower. Estoppel. Evidence. (Before Judge Stewart.)
   Hall, J.

1. Ifc was held in Ross vs. Wilson, 58 Ga., 2á9, that the widow of a tenant in common is dowable of lands held by her deceased husband at the time of his death jointly with another, and that partition need not precede the setting aside of the dower, but that the dower might first be set aside and partition might afterward be made.

2. A widow applied for dower, alleging that her husband was a tenant in common of certain lands; objection was filed by the other alleged tenant, who claimed that he alone held the land and denied the interest of the deceased. It was shown that he had repeatedly acknowledged the right of the deceased to an undivided half interest, had returned the property as theirs jointly until after the death of the deceased, and that the latter had with his knowledge received a portion of the rents; also that shortly after the burial of the deceased the objector went to his residence and demanded an inspection of his papers, and upon being refused persisted in his purpose, saying that there was a paper among them which he intended to have before the sun went down ; that he asked l'or the keys of the desk in which the deceased left his papers, but they were refused ; that subsequently a son of the deceased and brother-in-law of the objector spent a night at the house and obtained the keys; that the desk was removed, and after that none of the papers it contained could be found.

Held, that the evidence warranted a finding in favor of the applicant for dower, and that the conduct of the objector was sufficient to estop him from denying the seizin yof the land by the decedent. 55 Ga., 613.

(a). There was no error in admitting parol evidence to establish the title of the deceased to the land nor in the charge of the court upon that subject.

E» F. DuPree, Boynton & Hammond, for plaintiff in error.

J. S. Pope, by John I. Hall, for the defendant.

(b). No diligence was shown in procuring the newly discovered evidence, and it was at most merely cumulative.

Judgment affirmed.  