Lizd wrote > Am I wrong in thinking the wife has to sign off on her thirds in any land > sale or agree to the sale? One thing possibly to take into account for MD deeds, in addition to John's salient "should-be" vs. "was" commentary, is the "custom" vs. "law" divide. It wasn't until a supreme court decision of ?1817 or 1819 ? (darned if I can remember) that a wife's dower right was codifed as a matter of MD law rather than as an assumption within English Common Law. I think this case has been mentioned in this list, maybe a year or two ago. I have not seen court cases regarding Eastern Shore lands where a widow sued for her dower right and was denied - maybe others can fill in some blanks here. Elsewhere, the same law vs. practice divide occurred with great frequency. In some instances my suspicion is that the wife viewed her dower right as a bank that she could cash in on later. There are many instances where a widow sold her dower interest for cash money (that was now hers), decades after death of a husband. In one instance this was a delightful event, where the widow Sarah in 1817 signed off her dower right when a son sold his land bequeathed by his father's will of 1800. This was the only evidence found concerning her survival to that date, as she had not appeared on tax lists concerning chattels or concerning the lands bequeathed to sons by hubby's will. It also helped identify the son as son of his father, over and above the land's location, in the context of there being many persons in the vicinity by the same surname. Good hunting, Judy </HTML>