dissenting.
I find myself unable to concur in the conclusion reached by my associates, and the discussion contained in the prevailing opinion furnishes me a sound reason for my dissent. It is there clearly shown that the conclusion is wrong and amounts to a nullification of a positive statute which gives the appellant an estate of curtesy in the land in controversy. While I recognize the binding-force of the doctrine of stare decisis and of the rule of property, I do not think they require us to adhere to a former decision where it is clearly wrong- and is opposed to a plain provision of our own statutes. When there are two reasonable solutions of a question, both having support in principle and precedent, and the court has adopted one of them and has adhered to that view, until it has become a rule of property, then that rule applies, but it should not be invoked to sustain a rule which was absurd and clearly wrong in its inception. Again, I am not able to convince myself that the serious consequences anticipated by my associates would follow a correct decision of this case. I think I may say that it is a matter of common knowledge that the land grant railroads, mentioned in the prevailing opinion, adopted and, so far as we know, have carried out a rule which required both husband and wife to join in the assignment of its contracts of sale; and, so far as state school land contracts are concerned, the records of this court show so few cases where any controversy has arisen over the matter here in question that I am persuaded that no serious disturbance of property rights will arise by reason of a decision which will give to the appellant what in law and reason he is clearly *359entitled to receive. I am therefore of opinion that our former judgment should be set aside, and the judgment of the district court should be reversed.