
    William White et ux. versus Ebenezer Willis.
    
      Oct. 22d
    
    
      A- widow is dowable of a lot of wild land which was used by her husband in connexion with his dwellinghouse and cultivated land.
    
      Writ of dower.
    
    The tenant pleads, that the land in which dower is demanded is a lot of wild swamp land and wholly in a state of nature, jé ling no annual profits or income and incapable of cultivation, and is not now, and was not during the coverture of the wife with Nathan Warren, her former husband, adjoining to, parcel of, or connected with, any other estate of Warren.
    The demandants reply, that Warren, during the coverture, was seised in fee of a dwelling-house and a lot of land adjoining, containing thirty acres, the same then and ever since being wholly improved land, and under cultivation, of which the wife has been endowed; that Warren, during the coverture, was likewise seised in fee of the demanded premises, containing eleven acres of wild swamp land, this lot affording wood, timber and materials suitable for fire-bote, house-bote and fencebote for the wife for her necessary fuel and for the necessary repairs of such part of the dwellinghouse, and of the fences on such part of the land, as were assigned to her as her dower; the same lot having been used by Warren for the same purposes ; that this lot is within one mile of the dwellinghouse and cultivated land, and is the only lot of wood and timber that was owned and used by Warren, during the coverture, for the purposes before mentioned.
    The tenant makes a rejoinder, to which there is a general demurrer.
    The question was upon the sufficiency of the replication.
    Stevens, for the demandants,
    cited Conner v. Shepherd, 15 Mass. R. 167 ; St. 1783, c. 40, § 3.
    
      Wood, for the tenant,
    said that if the demandants were entitled to dower in the woodlot, it should be assigned as incident to her dower in the cultivated land; that she may now take her fire-bote, &c. as appurtenant to her dower already assigned, and her remedy is not by a writ of dower. 2 Bl. Com. 35.
   Per Curiam.

The plea sets forth a good bar, but the replication avoids it, by saying that the woodland was used as an appendage to the dwellinghouse and cultivated land for the purposes of procuring fuel and timber for repairs. We know of no authority for the suggestion, that the dowress has a right to take fire-bote, &c. without an assignment of her dower in the woodlot. This case is distinguished from those heretofore decided respecting dower. The Court have limited the dis-allowance of dower to wild land, which is not used with the homestead or with cultivated land. 
      
       See Revised Stat. c. 60, § 12; Webb v. Townsend, 1 Pick. 21.
      In order to entitle a tenant in dower to take fire-wood, there must be a house upon the land where it is assigned to her as dower. Fuller v. Wason, 7 N. Hampsh. R. 341. Such tenant can use the wood only in such house Ibid.
     