It follows, therefore, from the doctrine discussed in the foregoing section that the husband and wife as vendees in a land contract take by the entirety as one interest, and when they are named as vendees in such contract with another person they take together the fractional interest of one person instead of two; thus, where A and B. husband and wife are named as vendees in a land contract with D, D will hold one-half interest in the premises, and A and B together a moiety of the property.9

This doctrine has been confirmed by statute.10 If the conveyance to a husband and wife expressly provides that they shall take as tenants in common the prevailing modern doctrine is that they will not take by entireties.11 died. The bill of complaint in the above case of Robson v. Townley was filed by the ten surviving heirs-at-law of William Robson for partition of the premises. Under the contract, upon compliance with its terms, Robson and his wife were entitled to have a deed from Brown creating the estate by the entireties, which, on the death of Robson, would have gone to his wife by the right of survivorship. If Robson had outlived his wife, unquestionably his heirs would have been entitled to inherit. It, therefore, clearly appears that if the contract had been carried out, the situation would have been the same as now left by the decree of the court, and complainant has no right to complain, and is not entitled to the relief prayed for." See discussion in Gates on Real Property, Sec. 467. Forlich v. Blackstone, 155 Mich, 604; McMillan v. Schneider, 147 Mich. 263; Bauer v. Long, 147 Mich. 351.

9. It is now well settled that where a vendee's interest in a contract has been assigned to a husband and wife, they take as tenants by the entirety. Stevens v. Wake-man, 213 Mich. 560-567; Lergen v. Roiser, 200 Mich. 328-341; Auditor General v. Fisher, 84 Mich. 128-132; Barber v. Harris, N. Y. 1836, 15 Wend. 615; Jacobs v. Miller, 50 Mich. 119 (124) 15 N. 42; Dowling v. Salliotte, 83 Mich. 131 (135-136), 47 N. W. 225; Re. Appeal of Nellie Lewis, 85 Mich. 340 (343-346); Ful-lager v. Stockdale, 138 Mich. 363 (367-368), 101 N. W. 567.

10. All grants and devises of lands, made to two or more persons except as provided in the following section, shall be construed to create estates in common, and not in joint tenancy, unless expressly declared to be in joint tenancy. Sec. 11562 C. L. 1915. The preceding section shall not apply to mortgages, nor to devises or grants made in trust, or made to execu-ors, or to husband and wife. Sec. 11563 C. L. 1915.

11. Stewart, On Husband and Wife, 307-310; Tiedman, On Real Property (3 Ed.), 183; Freeman, On Co-tenancy and Partition, 72;

Sec. 45a. Effect Of Mutual Releases Of Property

When marital difficulty arises, the husband and wife frequently execute property settlements in which they mutually "release and sur render" all claims in each others property.

If the language in such contracts is clear and decisive and indicates a present intent to mutually release and transfer the respective rights of the parties in each others property, courts of equity will uphold such transfers and agreements even though they are not accompanied by deeds of conveyance, provided of course the contract is fair to the parties, and free from fraud and deceit.12