
    Shaw, widow, against White.
    The widow is entitled to dowerinlandsaiienlt)°
    DOWER for lands, in Granville, in Washington county. 7 ° J The husband of the demandant,- being seised in fee of about 2,000 acres of land in G., sold and conveyed them, in fee, in 1765, to John Lake, under whom the defendant acquired aregular title in fee. The husband died within two years after the deed to the his widow. At the time of the conveyance the premises- were new lands, „qnd ünimw pC0Ye¿. ¿ave beep since highly ■improved and. cultivated by. the defendant.
    The questions raised for the consideration of the court, and submitted dn the'case; without argument,, were; 1, Whether; and what, ‘the demandant is entitled to recover ? 2.- How the recovery is to be regulated in relation to the improved value of . the premises,?.
   Per Curiam

The rule by which the. recovery, in this case; is to be regulated, will1 be found laid down in the cases Of Humphrey v. Phinny, (2 Johns. Rep. 484.,) and Dorchester v. Coventry, (11 Johns. Rep. 512.) The case is rather obscure astoi the precise question submitted to the • court. There Can' be no doubt the demandant is entitled , to; recqver; and, under the Statute relative to such eases, (1 N. R. L. 60.,) thatreopver.y must be One third of the premises, .™ value,', as at the timé of the' conveyance by the husband, /The widow does not haye the benefit of the improvements:, or of the increased value or appreciation of the' land. The value, as ¡s suggested by the court, in Humphrey v. P’hinny;, must be ascertained, either by the sheriff oh the writ of seisin, or by a writ of. inquiry, founded on proper, suggestions.- The demandant must., accordingly, have judgment for one third of the premises, in value, as they were at the time Of the alienation by her husband.

Judgment accordingly.  