VA-ROOTS Archives

September 2004

VA-ROOTS@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Paul Drake <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paul Drake <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 11 Sep 2004 12:38:42 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
Thanks for not including me in your correction, Kathleen. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: [log in to unmask] 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 12:26 PM
  Subject: Re: Relinquishment of Dower


  Paul Drake said:

  > Not all states were "dower rights states." <snip>
  > Plus, those states that were once under the Napoleonic Code, or
  > adopted it, had their own provisions -- these include, e.g., Louisiana
  > and Texas (who use "community property" rights instead of dower
  > rights).

  The first sentence is correct. The second is partly correct--Texas is a
  community property state.

  But Texas was not under the Napoleonic Code except briefly when Texas was
  part of Mexico and Mexico was part of Spain (Napoleon installed his
  brother as king of Spain), and its constitutions both as a republic and as
  a state are not derived from the Napoleonic Code. Its land law derives
  from Spanish law, as do California's, Nevada's, New Mexico's, and
  Arizona's (and a few others). Spanish land law predates Napoleon by
  centuries.

  Kathleen Much

  To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
  http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2