Responsa for Bava Batra 314:10

Q. A rented a house to B for five years and received the rent for the entire period in advance. He promised to repay B the expenses for any structures he might erect in the house, and gave him a written guaranty to this effect. B spent six pounds on such structures. Subsequently, A died and his widow, L, took over the house in payment of her ketubah.
A. B must vacate the house; for L's ketubah was a lien upon it, before it was rented to B. L may remove anyone from the house, whether buyer, renter, or creditor; provided, of course, that her marriage to A took place, and A was owner of the house, before he sold it, rented it, or borrowed money. Therefore, if A left no movables and his estate does not exceed L's ketubah, B can not reclaim his money. If, however, A left movables with a third person, these movables ought to be turned over to B in payment of the obligation due him, and any excess should go to L. Whenever a creditor and a widow press their claims to an estate consisting of movables — unless the movables had previously been set aside by the husband for the payment of his wife's ketubah — the creditor has priority over the widow. The creditor's priority, however, as against the widow extends only to the payment of the Ikkar ketubah, the additional jointure, and that part of the dowry which the husband wrote in the ketubah in excess of what she actually gave him as dowry — thus in our ketubah we uniformly write that the wife brought in a dowry worth fifty pounds, regardless of the actual value of her dowry, and in our country a woman collects one hundred marks as her dowry, since we interpret the term "pound" to be a pound of weight, consisting of two marks. In regard to whatever the widow actually brought in as dowry she is considered a creditor sharing equally with other creditors in collecting from movables. Although a woman is entitled to collect the entire amount her husband wrote in the dowry clause of her ketubah in excess of what she actually brought in, she does not have equal right with a creditor in collecting that excess. Therefore, since in collecting her actual dowry from movables, L is on an equal footing with B, the movables mentioned above must be equally divided between L and B (and not in proportion to the respective obligations). When an estate consists of movables and immovables, and the latter do not suffice to cover the ketubah, the widow collects the Ikkar ketubah, the additional jointure, and the excess dowry, from the immovables, while she takes her part of the movables in payment of her actual dowry. The creditor may not claim that the immovables taken by the widow are in payment of her actual dowry, while she may not collect the rest of the ketubah from the movables until he, the creditor, collects his full debt therefrom, for the Ikkar ketubah and the additional jointure are liens upon the immovables, while in regard to the actual dowry she is considered a creditor entitled to share with the other creditors in collecting from movables (cf. Ket. 86a).
SOURCES: Am II, 67.