488 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

In our state, where the arable and wooded lands of our land-
holders are so frequently separated by intervening tracts, and
in which for the advantage and convenience of all the heirs it
is necessary that the dower of the widow should be divided
into several parcels, the adoption of such a rule would work
much practical mischief. Indeed, I am strongly inclined to
think the practicability of making equal partition of many
estates would be frustrated, if the widow must either have her
entire dower laid off in one unbroken parcel, or be subject to
the rule contended for, if divided into separate parcels.

No authority has been referred to in support of the position,
and I am persuaded none can be found. The cases of White
vs. Willis, 7 Pick., 143, and White vs. Cutler, 17 Pick., 248,
prove, that a lot of wood land, separated from the cultivated
lands, may be included in the assignment of dower, and when
so included, the widow may take from it fuel and timber for
the use of the cultivated lands.

The equity of this bill, as already observed, consists in
the allegation, that the dowress, having upon each part of
her dower, wood and timber, sufficient for its support, was
without necessity, and for the benefit of her own children, and
at the expense of the complainants, cutting down, and using
the wood upon their land, for the use and improvement of the
lands, in which the fee was in her children. This allegation
is, however, expressly denied by the answer, and as upon its
truth, in my opinion, depends the propriety of the injunction ;

and as the denial of the answer, upon this motion, and in the
present state of the case (there being no evidence) is conclu-
sive, it follows, the injunction must be dissolved,

[No appeal was taken from this order.]