Case Name: In re KING'S ESTATE. FOY v. KING
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1929-12-03
Citations: 248 Mich. 650
Docket Number: Docket No. 21, Calendar No. 34,469
Parties: In re KING’S ESTATE. FOY v. KING.
Judges: Fead, Butzel, Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 248
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
In re KING’S ESTATE. FOY v. KING.
Husband and Wipe — Tenants by Entireties — Right op Survivor-ship Where Lands Sold on Contract.
Where husband and wife join as vendors in contract for sale of land held by them as tenants by entireties, surviving spouse takes unpaid portion of purchase price by right of survivor-ship.
Case-made from Wayne; Browne (Clarence M.), J., presiding.
Submitted October 8, 1929.
(Docket No. 21, Calendar No. 34,469.)
Decided December 3, 1929.
Petition in probate court by Addie Foy and others to compel Edward King, administrator of the estate of Ella King, deceased, to file an amended inventory. From an order granting, relief on rehearing, the administrator appealed to the circuit court. A judgment of affirmance of order of the probate court is reviewed by case-made.
Reversed.
George 0. Hansen, for plaintiffs.
Henry Messimer, for defendant.

Opinion:
North, C. J.
The question here presented is whether a husband, who joined with his wife as a vendor in a land contract for the sale of lands held by them as tenants by entireties, takes the unpaid portion of the purchase price by right of survivor-ship upon the demise of the wife. Our decision in Detroit & Security Trust Co. v. Kramer, 247 Mich. 468, handed down, since the instant case was decided in the circuit court, is controlling. The surviving spouse takes by reason of his right of survivorship. The judgment of the lower court must be reversed, and the case remanded for judgment in accordance with this opinion; and thereupon the judgment will be certified to the probate court for further proceedings incident to the settlement of the estate of the deceased. The appellant will have costs in both the circuit court and Supreme Court.
Fead, Butzel, Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.