512 WATKINS v. WORTHINGTON.

seized; and which had been decreed to be sold. Whereupon she
prayed, that a commission might be issued, to assign dower to her.
And recommended Thomas H. Dorsey, James Wells, Eli Lusby,
Jacob Waters, and Caleb Dorsey, to be appointed commissioners
for that purpose.

2d July, 1828.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The bill states, that
Beale M. Worthington, the deceased, left a widow, Elizabeth R.
Worthington, and the infant children, these defendants, his heirs;
and then prays, that the real estate of the deceased may be sold
for the payment of his debts. Hence, taking this petitioner to be
the widow mentioned in the bill, it virtually recognizes her legal
right to dower; and therefore, there need be no hesitation in at
once, according to the established course of the court in similar
cases, either granting a commission to have dower assigned to her,
or in directing the land to be sold subject to her claim; or in
awarding to her a proportion of the purchase money in lieu thereof.
But, as in this case, the widow is not a party to the suit; and the
defendants are infants; it may not be amiss to allow the plaintiffs
to show cause, if any they have, why a commission should not
issue as prayed, leaving the application open to any further objec-
tions when the court shall, upon the return of the commissioners,
be called on for a decree confirming the assignment of dower so
made to her. (5)

Ordered, that a commission issue as prayed, to the persons
recommended; unless cause to the contrary be shewn on the 16th
instant; provided, that a copy of this order, together with a copy
of the aforegoing petition and recommendation, be served on the
plaintiffs or their solicitor, on or before the 9th instant.

The plaintiffs consented that a commission should issue as prayed,
which was issued accordingly. Upon which, the commissioners
made return, that they had assigned to the widow her dower,
according to certain metes and bounds as therein specified, and as
shewn by the annexed plot thereof, (e)

The trustee appointed to make the sale, reported that he had,
on the 4th of April, 1829, made sale of the real estate as directed

(6) Mildred v. Neill, ante 354; Ewing v. Ennals, ante 356.—(e) It appears from
the auditor's report, subsequently made and passed upon in this case, that the ex-
penses of the survey for making the assignment of dower, were allowed out of the
proceeds of the sale; but no decree confirming to the widow her dower, was ever
called for or passed.