
    Sarah Lufkin versus David Curtis.
    In a conveyance of land by a married man, words of release by the wife are necessary to bar her of her dower. It is not sufficient that she executes and acknowledges the deed, her name being introduced only in the conclusion, and the purpose of her signing and sealing not being declared.
    
      
      Mitchell, for the demandant,
    cited the case of Catlin vs. Ware, the second point. 
    
    
      Putnam, for the tenant,
    cited the cases of Fowler vs. Shearer, 
       and Popkin vs. Bumstead. 
      
    
    
      
       9 Mass. Rep. 220.
    
    
      
       7 Mass. Rep 14.
    
    
      
       8 Mass Rep. 491.
    
   By the Court.

The mortgage deed relied on by the tenant is

wholly insufficient to bar the demandant of her claim of dower. It contains no release of her right, nor any declaration for what reason she executed it. To have been valid for the purpose contended for by the tenant, it should have contained words importing a release of «ier claim of dower; which has been recognized as sufficient.

Tenant defaulted.

[See Leavitt vs. Lamprey, 13 Pick 382.—Melvin vs The Proprietors of Locks and Canals, 16 Pick. 137. — Powell & ux. vs. Monson & Brimfield Manuf. Co. 3 Mason, R 347. —Ed.]  