Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Tenancy-by-entireties-Part-3.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 21:51:13+00:00

Document:
21a. Patton v. Rankin, 68 Ind 245, 34 Am. Rep. 254; Dickey v. Converse, 117 Mich. 449, 76 N. W. 80, 72 Am. St. Rep. 568; Jones v. Smith, 149 N. C. 318, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1037, 128 Am. St. Rep. 661, 62 S. E. 1092; Citizens Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Jenkins, 91 Vt. 13, 99 Atl. 250.
S. W. 629; Brownson v. Hull, 16 Vt. 309, 42 Am. Dec. 517; Thornton v. Thornton, 3 Rand. (Va.) 182; Ketchum v. Walsworth, 5 Wis. 95, .68 Am. Dec. 49.
23. Hoffman v. Stigers, 28 Iowa, 302; Bader v. Dyer, 106 Iowa, 715, 68 Am. St. Rep. 332; Stewart v. Thomas, 64 Kan. 511, 68 Pac. 70; Louisville v. Coleburne, 108 Ky. 420, 56 S. W. 681; Wilson v. Wilson, 43 Minn. 398, 45 N. W. 710; Gresham v. King, 65 Miss. 387, 4 So. 120; Wilson v. Fleming, 13 Ohio 68.
S. W. 527; Bertles v. Nunan, 92 N. Y. 152, 44 Am. Rep. 361; Jones v. Smith, 149 N. C. 318, 62 S. E. 1092; Bramberry's Estate, 156 Pa. 632, 22 L. R. A. 594, 36 Am. St. Rep. 64; Yancey v. Radford, 86 Va. 638, 10 S. E. 972.
In New Jersey it has been said that the effect of the statute was to make a tenancy by the entireties equivalent in substance to a tenancy in common for the joint lives of husband and wife, with remainder in fee simple to the survivor. Schulz v. Zeigler, 80 N. J. Eq. 199, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 98, 83 Atl. 968.
25. Walthall v. Goree, 36 Ala. 728; Donegan v. Donegan, 103 Ala. 488; Whyman v. Johnston, 62 Colo. 461, 163 Pac. 76; Cooper v. Cooper, 76 111. 57; Lawler v. Byrne, 252 111. 194, 96 N. E. 892; Robinson's Appeal, 88 Me. 17, 30 L. R. A. 331, 51 Am. St. Rep. 367; Semper v. Coates, 93 Minn. 76, 100 N. W. 662; Clark v. Clark, 56 N. H. 105; Green v. Cannady, 77 S. C. 193, 57 S. E. 832 (unless perhaps when survivorship intended). So in England tenancy by entirety is regarded as abolished by the Married Woman's Property Act. Thornley v. Thornley (1893) 2 Ch. 229; In re March Mander v. Harris, 27 Ch. D. 166.
In California the Married Women's Act and a statutory provision that ownership by several persons is either joint interest, partnership interest, interest in common, or community interest, were held together to involve the abolition of tenancy by entirety. Swan v. Walden. 156 Cal. 195, 134 Am. St. Rep. 118, 20 Ann. Cas. 194, 103 Pac. 931.
In Minnesota the view that tenancy by the entireties no longer exists was based on the fact that in a revision of the statutes an exception of a devise or grant to husband and wife, which had previously existed in a statute dividing estates into "estates in severalty, in joint tenancy, and in common," was omitted. Wilson v. Wilson, 43 Minn. 398, 45 N. W. 710.
In McNeely v. South Penn. Oil Co., W. Va. 616, 62 L. R. A. 562, it was decided that by reason of the woman's separate property act and of an act abolishing survivorship between husband and wife, tenancy by the entireties no longer existed.
In Wisconsin the statutes in regard to married women have changed what was previously tenancy by the entirety into joint tenancy as regards real property. Wallace v. St. John, 119 Wis. 585, 97 N. W. 197; Bassler v. Rewod-liniski, 130 Wis. 26, 109 N. W. 1032, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 701.
Conn. 337; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Russell, 83 Conn. 581, 78 Atl. 324; Kerner v. McDonald, 60 Neb. 663, 83 Am. St. Rep. 550; Sergeant v. Steinberger, 2 Ohio 305, 15 Am. Dec. 553; Farmer's & Merchant's Bank v. Wallace, 45 Ohio St. 152, 12 N. E. 439; Helvie v. Hoover, 11 Okla. 687, 69 Pac. 958.
28. See post Sec. 205.
29. Pray v. Stebbins, 141 Mass. 219, 55 Am. Rep. 462; Hall v. Stephens, 65 Mo. 670, 27 Am. Rep. 302; Washburn v. Burns, 34 N. J. L. 18; Jackson v. McConnell, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 175, 32 Am. Dec. 439; Bertles v. Nunan, 92 N. Y. 152, 44 Am. Rep. 361; Fairchild v. Chastelleux 1 Pa. St. 181, 44 Am. Dec. 117; Ames v. Norman, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 683, 70 Am. Dec. 269; Bennett v. Child, 19 Wis. 362, 88 Am. Dec. 692.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.