
    Harriet M‘Creary v. William Cloud.
    The return to a writ of admeasurement of dower must specify the entire value of the land, as well the sum assessed in lieu of dower; but if the commissioners have actually been upon the land and appraised it, they may be permitted to amend the return, so as to exhibit the entire value.
    The widow is not intitled, at law, to interest on the assessed value of her dower, where the husband died seized. The acts of 1824, and 1825, apply only to cases where the husband aliened during coverture.
    Before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Chester, Fall Term, 1830.
    The defendant excepted to the return to a writ for the admeasurement of demandant’s dower — 1. That the return did not specify the entire value of the land, but only the gross sum assessed in lieu of dower. 2. That the commissioners ha'd assessed interest from the death of the husband, although the husband died seized, and it did not appear when the defendant went into possession, or the demandant out of possession.
    The presiding judge overruled the exceptions, and confirmed the return; And this was a motion to reverse his decision.
    Williams, for the motion.
    Clark, contra.
    
   Harper, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The act of the Legislature, on the subject of dower, provides that the commissioners “ shall have power, and they are hereby authorized and required, in the admeasurement aforesaid, to have relation and regard to the true and real value of the lands in question; and when the same cannot, in the opinion of a majority of them, be fairly and equally divided without manifest disadvantage, then they, or a majority of them as aforesaid, shall assess a sum of money, to be paid to the widow in lieu of her dower.” Act of 1786, P. L. 409. It has, I believe, been the uniform practice of commissioners, in executing writs of admeasurement of dower, to return an assessment of the entire value of the laud, as well as the sum of money given in lieu of dower; and thé writs ordinarily issued give that direction to the commissioners. In the case of Wright v. Jennings, decided by this Court in 1829, Judge Nott expresses his opinion, that they ought to make a return of the appraised value of the land, that the Court may know the basis of the assessment. Without it, the Court connot determine, whether they have “ had relation and regard to the true and real value of the land.” We think therefore, that on this point, the decision of the Circuit Court must be reversed. We are of opinion, however, that if the commissioners did go upon the land, and appraise its value, they may be permitted to amend their return, so as to shew their assessment.

With respect to the allowance of interest on the sum assessed in lieu of dower, it has been determined in the case of Heyward v. Cuthbert, 1 M‘C. 386, and in the case of Wright v. Jennings, before referred to, that the vyidow cannot recover interest at law. The acts of the Legislature of 1824 and 1825, relate only to cases in which the husband has aliened the land during the coverture, and cannot apply where he died seized. ¡

The motion must therefore be granted on this ground also, and the cause remanded.  