Dower declined because protecting widows conflicted with fluid land markets

Evidence

Dower had one rather remarkable feature: a husband could not shake off the wife’s rights by selling his land or giving it away (unless she agreed). Over all land he owned, or had owned, hung the shadow of “inchoate dower.” This shadow followed the land through the whole chain of title, until the wife died and the claim disappeared. … As a protection device, dower had severe limitations. It perhaps made sense for the landed gentry of England, or for plantation owners. But if the husband’s wealth consisted of stocks and bonds, or a business, dower was basically not much use. Dower had another fault, too. The husband’s creditors could not reach it. This was good for wives but bad for the creditors. And dower was an annoying cloud on titles. Long years after some piece of land had been sold, the widow of some prior owner could rise up like a ghost to haunt a buyer. This was perhaps the real fly in the ointment. The Midwest, poor in everything but land, showed early impatience with dower. Indiana abolished it, at least in name, in 1852. — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 2485

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to ch7 on married women’s property and trusts circumventing coverture, and to ch36 showing apparent opposites in land law served one developmental goal. — connects to: Entrenched property-ownership ideals defeated the effort to treat land as a social resource — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 1077

Broader Connections

• Entrenched property-ownership ideals defeated the effort to treat land as a social resource #exemplifies (0.78) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 1077