
    
      Mary Douglass vs. William McDill.
    
    1. Where commissioners assess a sum of money in lieu of dower, they must award to the widow one-third of seven years’ lawful interest of the money value so assessed, which is taken in practice as one-sixth part of the entire assessment. ( Wright vs. Jennings, 1 Baily, 277.) If it appear, from the return of the commissioners, that they have assessed a sum of money in lieu of dower, exceeding one-sixth part of the entire assessment, the Court will not alter the return, but recommit it to the commissioners. (1.)
    2. It was held by the Court that the demandant might have released or remitted the excess, and thus have removed the objection to the return. Upon her doing so, it was ordered that the return be confirmed and entered of judgment; otherwise, motion dismissed. (2)
    3. The right of dower is the same as other legal rights to property, and as strictly regarded in law; old or young, the widow has the same estate, and of course is entitled to the same equivalent. Per Richardson, J.
    
      Before Earle, J., Abbeville> Fall Tefm; 1842.
    This was an application for dower. The commissionsers, in their return to a writ for the admeasurement of dower, after assessing the value of the land at $8 per acre, and expressing also the number of acres, proceeded to assess a sum of money in lieu of dower, which exceeded, by $28 dollars, one-sixth part of the entire value of the land, according to their own estimate. There was evidence in the shape of affidavits for another purpose before the Court, that the widow, instead of being of an age to claim more than one-sixth, was of so advanced an age as hardly to be entitled to so much. His Honor did not think it competent to amend the return in the absence of the commissioners, or to confirm it in part, as the return was in fact to become the judgment of tire court. He therefore ordered it to be recommitted to the commissioners.
    
      Grounds of Appeal;
    
    The plaintiff appealed, and in the Court of Appeals renewed her motion for confirmation of the return of the commissioners, on the following grounds:
    1. That the return of the commissioners, when not impeached for fraud or error in principle, is final and conclusive.
    1. See Hawkins vs. Hall et al., 2 Bay, 449.
    2. Tidd’s Practice, 2 vol., 896.
    
      2. That the assessment of a sum of money in lieu of dower, which exceeded the one-sixth of the value of the land, in this case was not error.
    3. That if the assessment of a sum of money in lieu of dower, which exceeded the one-sixth of the value of the land, was error, the Court was in possession of all the facts, and should have corrected the return, or permitted the plaintiff to have entered a remitter for the excess, and confirmed the return as to the sum which was proper, and granted leave to the plaintiff to enter judgment for that sum.
   Curia, per

Richardson, J.

As dower consists in the widow’s right, during her life, to one-third part of all the lands of which her husband was seized during their coverture, and as seven years’ use of land is the measure of the value of a life estate, it rationally follows that seven years’ lawful interest of the money value of the land is the equivalent of the life estate. It is plain, then, that commissioners who have assessed the value in money must award to the widow one-third of seven years’ interest upon the money value so assessed, in lieu of her dower. But one-third of such seven years’ interest is so nearly equal to one-sixth part of the entire assessment, that such one-sixth is taken, in practice, as the true measure, in money, of the value of dower. Wright vs. Jennings, 1 Bail. Rep. 277.

But the commissioners are bound to adhere to the proper measure. The right of dower is the same as other legal rights to property, and as strictly regarded in law; old or young, the widow has the same estate, and of course is entitled to the same equivalent. Yet there are judicial dicta that would go to allow some discretion, in extreme cases of the age or youth of the widow. But, for myself, I do not recognize any such qualification. In the case before the Court, the return of the commissioners was very properly recommitted to them, because it awarded to the widow twenty-eight dollars more than she was entitled to, under the rule before noticed. And, assuredly, the Court could not alter the return. But this Court are of opinion that the demandant might have lawfully released or remitted the excess of twenty-eight dollars, and thus answer the only tenable objection.

Perrin, for the motion; Burt, contra.

St is therefore ordered that, upon the demandant so releasing and remitting the excess of twenty-eight dollars, the return of the commissioners be confirmed and entered of judgment. But unless such remitter be entered, the motion in this Court is dismissed.

O’Neall, Evans, Earle, and Butler, JJ., concurred.

Wardlaw, J., having been of counsel, gave no opinion.  