
    Keefer vs. Young.
    Parol evidence admitted to prove that the land granted to the husband of a demandant, is the same land of which dower is do mantled
    In an action of dower it is not ne*» eessary to lay any damages in the
    A demurrer to the declaration being overruled, ment was entered for dower and. costs, (note)
    
    Appeal from Frederick county court. An action of dower was brought by the present appellant, who was the wife of Darile Keefer, deceased, “for the third part of 50 acres of land, -with the appurtenances, lying and being in Frederick county, consisting of part of a tract of land called Ohio, and pai-t of a tract of land called Wertimburgh, which she claims as her dower of the endowment of the said Bar-tie Keefer, her late husband,” &c. The defendant pleaded, 1st. That Bartle Keefer was not seized, &c. And 2d. That he was alive at the time of the impetration of the writ. Issue was joined to the first plea; and replication* that Barth Keefer was not alive at the time, &c. as to the-other plea, and issue joined,
    1. The demandant, at the trial, to prove that Bartle Keefer was seized oí the tract of land called Wertimburghy offered in evidence a patent of a tract of land called Wertinburgh, granted to Bartel Keefer on the 17th of July 1765; and proved that the patentee of Wertinburgh, entered upon the land, and was seized thereof, as the law requires. She then offered a patent for a tract of land called Whiterback, granted to George Haiman on the 13th of November 1759» for 27 acres; and that the patentee entered upon the land, and was seized thereof as the law requires» Also, a deed from George Herman, the patentee of Whiterback, to* Bartel Ceefer, dated the 20th of August 1765» And that the grantee entered upon the land in the deed mentioned» and was seized thereof as the law requires. And she, offered to prove that the grantee, in the deed last mentioned, ■ and the patentee in the patent of Wertinburgh, was the same, and not divers or different persons; and that the land called Wertinburgh in the patent, and the land called Wertimbvrgh in the declaration mentioned, is the same land, and not divers; and that George Haiman, the patentee of the tract of land called V ertimburgh, and the grantee in the deed before referred to, is the same person, and not divers. She also proved that Bartle Keefer was seized in his demesne as of fee of the said tract of land called Wertinburgh, and that he died seized thereof in the yean 1777, and before the impetration of the original writ in this cause. She also proved that she was the wife of Bartle Keefer, lawfully accoupled in holy matrimony. She then offered parol evidence to prove, that the tenant in this action holds the land called Wetlimburgh, and the part of Ohio, conveyed as aforesaid to Bartle Keefer, claiming the same under the heirs of Bartle Keefer. The defendant then prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that the evidence on the part of the demandant did not support the declaration, and that the demandant could not recover under the same. Of which opinion the county court, QClagett, Ch. J. and Shriver, A. J.] were, and so directed the jury. The demandant excepted.
    
      ’fíie demandant then prayed the opinion of the court, that on the issues joined ill this cause, she hath shown good title to recover lver dower of the tract of land called Wertimburgh, in the declaration named; which opinion, the county court refused to give. The demandant excepted; and the verdicts and judgment being for the defendant, ¿he appealed to this court.
    
      Shaaff and Brookb, for the appellant,
    cited 2 Inst. 286. 10 Coke, 1.17, Pilford’s case.
    
      Taney and F. S. Key, for the appellee.
   The Court of Appeals

reversed the judgment of the •County Court, disagreeing with that court in the opinions expressed in both -oí the bills of exception.

PROOEDEXDO AW ARDED . 
      
      
         Neither In this -case, iior in that of Keefer vs. Marker, 'ivere any damages laid in the declaration. The case of Keefer vs. Marker was also an appeal from Frederick county court, in an action oi’tfoioer. To the. deciaiation theie was a general dernwrer* and joinder in demui'rer, and the county court ruled the demurtfer good, and gave judgment for the defendant; from which judgment the demandant appealed to this court. And at thisterni the «ourt of appeals reversed the judgment* and-entered a judgment •^k the demandant tor dower and costs?»
     