HANNAH K. CHASE'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 195

If a defendant demurs and pleads to the same matter, his plea overrules his
demurrer; and so if he pleads and answers to the same matter, his
answer overrules his plea, (b)

To make a decree a good bar in a subsequent suit, it must be shown, that
the matter of the bill was res judicata; that there was an absolute deter-
mination by the Court that the party had no title, (e)

A solicitor is not permitted to reveal the confidential communications made
to him by his client, either before or after the termination of the suit:
but, as it is the privilege of the client, he may waive it, and thus make
the solicitor a competent witness, (d)

An absolute sale to the husband, with a condition for a repurchase, not
being a mortgage, vests in him an estate in fee simple, of which his wife
is dowable. (e)

The acknowledgment of the wife, in the form prescribed by the Act of
Assembly of a lease for years made by her husband, can only operate as
a bar of her dower during, and to the extent of the lease.

In equity the widow may have an account of the rents and profits of her
dower from the time her title accrued, (f)

Where the property is incapable of division, dower may be assigned la the
form of a rent, distrainable of common right.

This bill was filed on the 22d of November, 1821, by Hannah K.
Chase, as the widow of the late Samuel Chase; against Samuel
Chase, and others, his heirs, and some others, to recover dower in
a house and lot in the City of Baltimore, called the Fountain Inn.
To which bill all the defendants answered, and testimony was
taken. The heirs alleged, that the late Samuel Chase had .not
such a legal interest in the property in question as to entitle the
plaintiff to dower: and that even if she ever had been entitled to
dower, she had relinquished her claim, as was shown by the records
and the agreement by which former suits, in relation to this same
claim, had been brought to a close. The letter of the solicitors of
this plaintiff, dated 28th of September, 1810, and addressed to her,
in relation to the bringing of those then pending suits to a close, is
in these words:
"DEAR MADAM—

"Understanding that an amicable adjustment of your suits in
Chancery with the legal representatives of the late Judge Chase,
was likely to take place, conformably to your request, we have
*turned our attention to the points in controversy involved 207
in those suits, and particularly to the property known and
distinguished by the name of the Fountain Inn, in which we are of
opinion, you have no title of dower during Bryden's lease, having

(b) See Bank v. Dugan, 2 Bland, 254.

(c) See Alexander v. Walter, 8 Gil!, 239, note; Shafer v. Stonebraker. 4 G.
& J. 345.

(d) Cf. Hodges v. Mullikin, post, 503.

(e) See Hicks v. Hicks, 5 G, & J. 73, note (c).

(f) See Wells v. Beall, 2 G. & J. 468; Steiger v. Hillen, 5 G. & 3. 132.