
    Hadassah Folsom v. Daniel P. Rhodes and others.
    Motion for leave to file a petition in error.
    The facts are indicated by the court.
    
      A. J. Marvin and S. O. Griswold, for the motion:
    The dower act of June 1, 1824, was in force when the land in controversy was purchased; under it, Mrs. Eolsom had an inchoate right of dower, of which no proceeding to which she was not a party could deprive her. McArthur v. Franklin, 15 Ohio St. 485.
    She has a right to redeem under such a mortgage. Mills v. Van Voorhies, 20 N. Y. 413; 1 Hilliard on Mortgages, 154; 1 Scribner on Dower, 482, 483. See also West, J., in State Bank of Ohio v. Hinton et al., 21 Ohio St. 515, 516.
    
      Otis l¡¡ Adams, contra:
    Mr. Eolsom had no such seizin of the premises as entitled his wife to dower therein as against Jones, or those claiming title by judicial sale made upon the foreclosure of that mortgage. Mrs. Eolsom was not, therefore, a necessary party to the suit, so far as it reí ates to the foreclosure brought upon the mortgage to Jones. Welch v. Buskins et al., 9 Ohio St. 331; McArthur v. Franklin, 15 Ohio St. 485, 507-511.
   By the Court.

Where the purchaser of land executes a mortgage to the vendor for unpaid purchase money, and the land is afterward, and during the lifetime of the purchaser, sold under judicial proceedings for foreclosure of the mortgage, the widow of the purchaser, although she did not sign the mortgage, and was not made a party to the proceeding of foreclosure, is not entitled to dower in the premises, or to redeem the same.

Motion overruled.  