KIDDALL VS. TRIMBLE. 145

issue, whereby he became entitled to one-half of his grand-
father's estate. Anna Chase, since deceased, married James
Belt, and had issue, a daughter, named Jane I. Belt, who mar-
ried George H. De la Roche, and to whom the complainant, in
the year 1839, sold all her dower interest in the lands to which
her deceased husband, William Chase, had been entitled. Jane
Jacob left a will, by which William Trimble was appointed her
executor; in whose hands, after paying all her debts, there re-
mained the sum of $4,666 00. In the year 1838, the com-
plainant instituted in Baltimore County Court, an action on the
case against William Trimble, surviving executor of Jane
Jacob, for one-third of the rents and profits of the estate, to
which her husband was entitled, from his death, to the death
of said Jane Jacob; to which non assumpsit was pleaded, and
upon which judgment was rendered against the plaintiff, in the
year 1841. She then brought suit in this court upon the same
cause of action, against the same defendant; who set up by
way of defence, the said judgment; the sale to Jane I. De la
Roche; the absence of any demand of dower, except by the
suit in Baltimore County Court; and the plea of limitations.

The case having been argued before the Chancellor, he de-
livered the following opinion :]

THE CHANCELLOR :

The bill in this case, then, is, to recover a proportion of the
rents and profits ofcertain real estate, in which the complain-
ant claimed dower, upon the allegation that her late husband,
William I. Chase, died seized thereof. And there can be no
doubt, assuming such to be the case, that a court of law was
competent to give her damages for the detention other dower.
The statute of Merton, when the husband dies seized, giving
the wife damages equal to the value of the dower, from the
time of the death of the husband. 4 Kent COOT., 65; Park on
Dower, 302.

It was supposed at one time, and indeed the impression was
strengthened by. what fell from the Court of Appeals, in the
case of Steiger's administrator vs. Hillen, 5 G. & J.» 133, that
13