192 MARGARET HALL'S CASE.— 1 BLAND.

* BLAND, C., 15th November, 1825. — If the plaintiff fails to
proceed against the defendant John F. Gittings, for the
purpose of compelling him to appear and answer, or of having the
bill, as against him, taken pro confesso, or to cause publication to
be made against him, as an absent defendant, on or before the
tenth day of the next term, then the other defendants may again
move according to the usual course, to have the injunction dis-
solved.

After which the plaintiff, with the leave of the Court, so
amended her bill as to state, that the defendant Gittings was a
non-resident; and, on the 1st of February, 1826, obtained an order
of publication against him in the usual form. On the 27th Sep-
tember, 182G, the defendant Gittings filed his answer, alter which
the motion to dissolve was renewed.

C., 3d March, 1827. — This case having been submitted
on the motion to dissolve the injunction, and all the defendants
having now answered, as completely to remove every ground
of equity set forth in the bill, it is ordered, that the injunc-
tion heretofore granted be aud the same is herebj annulled and
dissolved.

MARGARET HALL'S CASE.
DEVISE IN LIEU OF DOWEE.

A widow, who elects to take the estate devised to her, in lieu of dower, is
to be deemed a purchaser for a fair consideration to the value of her
dower, and must have her claim sustained as a lien, to that extent, in
preference to creditors, (a)

This case arose upon a creditor's bill, filed on the 5th October,
1825, by George Mackubin and Margaret Hall, the widow and
executrix of Joseph Hall, deceased, against his devisees, Samuel
Matthews, and others; alleging, that his personal property was
insufficient to pay his debts, and praying, that his real estate
might be sold tor that purpose. A decree was passed on the 30th
of June, 1826, for the sale of the realty accordingly; and the trustee
reported, that he had made sale of a part of it, which was finally
ratified on the 1st of March, 1827.

On the first of March, 1827, the plaintiff, Margaret, by her
petition stated, that her late husband had, by his last will, devised

(a) Affirmed in Durham v. Rhodes, 23 Md. 242; Thomas v. Wood, 1 Md.
Ch. 301. See Griffith v. Griffith, 4 H. & McH. 103, note; Gibson v. McCor-
mick, 10 G. & J. 67, note (k).