Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/430

Rh 

1789.

might certainly have been effected, notwithftanding that right of dower. And why fhould not the fame be done in the cafe before the Court? The devifee held the moiety allotted to her, fubject to the claim of dower; and, in doing this, there was nothing inconfiftent or uncommon : Nor, can we perceive, how the recovery in partition, eftops the Demandant from faying, that fhe has a claim of dower in that part of the premiffes which has been affigned to the Tenant. As, indeed, on the one hand, there is no cafe, nor dictum of any Judge, to warrant this plea, fo, on the other, we think reafon and juftice are againft it. The cafe cited by the counfel for the Tenants only fays, that, in dower, the Demandant claims dower of lands unde nibil habet &c. and, therefore, fhe fhall be ftopped from claiming any thing more.

Upon the whole, are clearly of opinion, and direct, that judgment be entered for the Defendant. 

MOTION being made for a rule upon the Sheriff to return a Venditioni Exponas, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, upon a doubt expreffed by that officer, faid, that, by the fpirit and words of the act of Affembly, the Sheriff muft fell not merely to the higheʃt, but to the beʃt, bidder ; that, therefore, if the higheft bidder was unable to pay, the Sheriff might make an offer to the next higheft ; and that if the property was not paid for after a fale, the return fhould be, that “ the premiffes were knocked down to A.B. for

“ fo much, that the faid A.B. has not paid the purchafe money,

“ and, that, therefore, the premiffes remain unfold.” 

HIS was an action on a policy of infurance, upon the trial of which, Lewis,  for the Plaintiff, offered to read in evidence a fpecial verdict that had been given in another action upon the fame policy, but againft a different underwriter. Sergeant and Ingerʃol  objected, that the verdict was given between other parties, and, therefore, not admiffible ; upon which Lewis proved an agreement of all the underwriters to be bound by one verdict.

M‘KEAN, Chieƒ Juʃtice.– The objection turns upon this principle, that the Defendant had no opportunity of crofs-examining upon the former trial; and the anfwer is, that he, with the reft of the underwriters, had agreed to be bound by one verdict; which is certainly the only ground for offering the evidence propofed by the Plaintiff's counfel. Rh