Definition
Ne unques seisie que dow is a plea in dower — a common law pleading defense available to a defendant in a dower action — by which the defendant asserts that the deceased husband was never seised of the lands claimed in such a manner as to entitle the widow to dower. The phrase is Law French meaning roughly "never seised as of dower." When a widow brought a writ of dower to recover her dower right in her late husband's lands, the defendant could interpose this plea to deny that the conditions entitling her to dower were ever satisfied, specifically challenging whether the husband held the kind of seisin from which dower could arise.
Despite being commonly referred to in older practice as the "general issue" in dower proceedings, the plea did not function precisely as a true general issue. It did not operate as a direct traverse or denial of the widow's count; rather, it amounted to a special denial targeted at the foundational prerequisite of dower — qualifying seisin by the husband. This made it something of an anomaly within the classical pleading structure, since it sat uneasily between a general issue and a special plea without fully conforming to either category.
Common Confusion
Ne unques seisie que dow is frequently described in older sources as the "general issue" in dower, but this characterization is imprecise and was acknowledged as such even by contemporaries. A true general issue traverses and denies the substance of the plaintiff's declaration directly. This plea, by contrast, targets only the specific question of qualifying seisin and does not deny the count in the conventional sense. Researchers encountering the label "general issue" in dower proceedings should not assume the plea carried the same procedural consequences as a general issue in other forms of action.
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in pre-abolition common law pleading materials and in older English and American practice manuals dealing with the real actions. It will surface in historical records of dower litigation and in treatises on common law pleading from the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Because it is Law French, researchers working in manuscript court records or early printed reports may encounter variant spellings or partial Latin equivalents.
The reference in Rapalje & Lawrence to the Common Law Procedure Act 1860 (sections 25 and 27) is significant: that statute was part of the broader Victorian reform of pleading that progressively displaced the old special pleas and real actions. Researchers tracing how dower practice changed across the reform period should examine how Ne unques seisie que dow either survived, was modified, or was rendered redundant by procedural legislation. In American jurisdictions that received the English common law, the plea had a variable life depending on whether the state retained the real actions or replaced them with statutory dower proceedings.
Because the plea was categorized as an anomaly even within the classical system, it receives uneven treatment in pleading treatises. Some authorities fold it into discussions of the general issue; others address it as a species of special plea. This inconsistency means a researcher relying on any single treatise may get an incomplete picture of how the plea actually functioned in practice.
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence is the sole source represented here, and its entry is concise but pointed. It correctly identifies the plea's awkward doctrinal position — acknowledged in practice as the "general issue" of dower while not strictly meeting the definition of that term — and flags the pleading anomaly without fully resolving it. The citation to the Common Law Procedure Act 1860 anchors the entry in the reform period, signaling that the plea was being displaced or modified at the time Rapalje & Lawrence was compiled.
What the entry does not address is the substantive law of dower seisin underlying the plea — specifically, what quality and duration of seisin by the husband was required to support a dower claim, and how courts evaluated those questions when the plea was put in issue. For that dimension, researchers should consult dedicated treatises on dower, including older authorities such as Littleton and Coke's commentary, as well as American treatises that addressed dower seisin in the context of fee simple and equitable estates.
Jurisdictional Note
The plea is a creature of English common law and its reception in common law jurisdictions. American states that retained real actions and common law dower into the nineteenth century would have recognized the plea, but statutory dower reforms — enacted at varying times across the states — progressively eliminated the procedural context in which Ne unques seisie que dow would be interposed. English practice was substantially affected by the Common Law Procedure Acts and ultimately by the Judicature Acts of the 1870s.