
    Administrator of James Russell against John Gee.
    **; T Al .«¿seeing a gaíLí'aMurenaser, on behalf oi rirmorowneriuie value ottuo laud at me mno 02 alienation,amliiot í!ítJ¡“Se proper' ™Ie‘
    This was an action to recover 1425 dollars, ' the amount of a promissory note given by the ... ° defendant lO tile plaintiff’s intestate. The den x 11 iji i • jy fence set up was, that the note was given tor a 1 0 fracf °f *4U0 acres of land, in 75 acres of which the widow of Randal Revil, of whom the plaintiff’s intestate purchased, was entitled to dower,, as she had not renounced her dower in it. On this 75 acres there were two grist mills, a saw mill, and a cotton machine, which, according to the evideucc, was at present worth 2500 dollars, and produced an annual income of about 300 dollars clear of expense. But at the time of the alienation by Randal Revil, the saw and grist mills were greatly out of repair; since which time the plaintiff’s intestate had thoroughly repairedthem, and added the cotton machine, which had raised them to their present value. The measure of the defendant’s discount depended wholly on the extent of the widow’s right of dower, and that depended on the question, whether she was entitled to dower according to the value at the time of alienation, or at its present increased value ?
    For the purpose of ascertaining what was the value of the widow’s dower, I directed the Jury that they ought to ascertain either the annual income, or the value of the whole estate, and allow one-third of the annual income or interest, or one-third of the whole value for seven years, which I conceived to be the rule in England, and it it i which 1 inclined to believe was reasonable, and had been adopted by the Court of Equity in state; but that, in my opinion, in this estimate they ought to have regard to the value of the land at the time of the alienation by Randal Revil, and not to its present improved value. The only evidence as to its value at the time of its alienation, was the price at which it was then sold, and the subsequent sale by the plaintiff’s intestate to defendant; taking either of which as the basis of the calculation, the sum of 180 dollars, allowed by the verdict as the discount, according to the rule laid down, was equal to the value of dower; and although this was far from being conclusive evidence as to value, yet, in the absence of all other, it might be considered as sufficient. But to calculate the dow'er according to its present improved value, a much greater sum would have resulted by either mode of calculation.
    A motion is submitted for a new trial, on the ground that the discount allowed is inadequate to the value of Mrs. ReviPs dower.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Johnson.

The ground stated in the brief is predicated on the conclusion, that the widow is entitled to her dower, to be assessed according to the presen* *mProved value °f lands; and if that were correct, a new trial ought to be the consequence» _ _ , . But if the rule be, that it ought to be assessed to the value, at the time of alienation from the evidence of its then value, a sufficient sum was allowed, according to the principles laid down, the correctness of which has not been questioned. The reasonableness and correctness of the rule, that the dower of the widow shall be assessed according to the value of the lands at the time of alienation, and not according to the improved value, is so clearly established by principle and authority, as to supersede all reasoning upon it. (2 Johnson's Reports, 484.)

I am, therefore, of opinion, that the motion for a new trial ought to be dismissed.

Gmnkc, Colcock, Gantt, and JYott, J. concurred.  