A conveyance of land to two or more persons without words indicating that they are to take as tenants in common, constitutes, at Law, a joint tenancy (a) ; and the rule is the same in Equity (b), if they advance the money in equal proportions (c), and do not purchase as partners, or for the purposes of trade or speculation.

Section 1

Purchasers joint-tenants at Law, and when in Equity ;

In case of a husband and wife acquiring lands either by gift or conveyance during coverture they formerly held by entireties {d) ; the effect of the M. W. P. Act, 1882, has been to make such gift or conveyance, taking effect after the commencement of the Act, create a joint tenancy (e). But where there is a gift to a husband and wife and a third party, in the absence of any expression of a contrary intention, the husband and wife still only take one moiety between them though they take it as joint tenants (f), except in the case of their taking as members of a class (g). Neither the marriage of a female joint tenant nor a subsequent demise by her in case of husband and wife.

(a) Co. Litt. 180 b; Aveling v. Knipe, (1815) 19 Vcs. 441, Ml.

(b) Moyse v. Gyles, (1700) 2 Vern. 385; Rea v. Williams, Sug. 14th ed. G98, where the conveyance was taken in the name of the trustee; Bone v. Pollarl, (1857) 21 Beav. 283.

(c) Sug. 14th ed. 697, 698 ; and see Robinson v. Trenton, (1858) 4 K. & J. 505 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 394 ; and the cases there reviewed ; Palmer v. Rich,

1897, 1 Ch. 134 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 69.

(d) Litt. s. 291; Co. Litt. 187 a; Challis, R. P. 2nd ed. 344.

(e) Thornley v. T., 1893, 2 Ch. 229 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 370.

(f) Re Jupp, (1888) 39 Ch. D. 148; 57 L. J. Ch. 774 ; Re Dixon, (1889) 4 2 Ch. I). 30G.

(g) Re Gnc, (1892) 61 L. J. Ch. 510 ; G7 L.T. 823.

Husband and the other joint tenant will effect a severance of the joint tenancy (h).

If, however, two purchase, and one advances more of the purchase-money than the other, there will, in Equity, be no survivorship, though there are no words indicating a tenancy in common (/) ; but they will, in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, be interested in proportion to their shares of the purchase-money. In Lake v. Gibson (k), the proposition is qualified by the expression, "if the proportions of the money are not equal, and this appears on the deed itself" (/), and the dictum is thus cited by Lord St. Leonards (m) ; but the rule is laid down by Lord Hard-wicke without qualification (n). It is, however, conceived that the inequality in the sums advanced, must, to have this effect, be in accordance with the original or some subsequent express agreement [between the parties ; and not be the mere result of any temporary pecuniary arrangement at the time of the completion of the purchase (o).

Not if they contribute unequally to purchase-money ;

And, though the purchase-money may have been contributed in equal proportions, an intention to hold in severalty may be presumed aliunde. Thus, where two sisters paid the rents of certain lands of which they were tenants in common to a joint account at their banker's, and sums of stock were from time to time purchased in their joint names out of the balance in the banker's hand, the Court, looking at the source though circumstances may raise a presumption of a tenancy in common, whence the funds were derived, held that there was a tenancy in common in the stock (p). And, notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds, parol evidence of the contemporaneous circumstances, and of the subsequent dealings with the property, is admissible to prove an intention to hold in severalty; but such evidence must be confined to facts, as distinguished from mere statements of intention (q). In one case, however, a declaration, by affidavit, of intention, made long after the date of the transaction, was admitted in evidence (>•).

(h) Palmer v. Rich, 1897, 1 Ch. 134 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 69.

(i) Rigden v. Vallier, (1751) 2 Ves. sen. 252, 258 ; S. C, 3 Atk. 731, 735; but see Harris v. Fergusson, (1848) 16 Si. 308; as to the soundness of the distinction between equal and unequal advances of the purchase-money, see reporter's note in Jackson v. J., (1804) 9 Ves. at p. 597 ; Sug. 14th ed. 698 ; 2 Wh. & T. L. C. 7th ed. 958.

(k) (1729) 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 291 ; 2 Wh. & T. L. C. 7.th ed. 957.

(I) See, as to the words italicized, Harrison v. Barton, (1860) 1 J. & H. 287, and V.-C. Wood's comments, p. 293 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 213 ; and see Sug. 14th ed. 698, note.

(m) Sug. 14th ed. 698.

(n) Rigden v. Vallier, (1751) 2 Ves. sen. at p. 258 ; 3 Atk. 735 ; and see judgment in Robinson v. Frcston, (1858) 4 K. & J. 505 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 394.

(o) See Wood v. Birch, (1804) Sug. 14th ed. 700 ; and Avcling v. Knipe, (1815) 19 Ves. 441, 445.

And parol evidence of facts is admissible for the purpose;

Tenants in common of a mortgage, buying the equity of redemption, shall hold it also in common (s) ; and where land is conveyed to partners as joint tenants for the purposes of trade, there is no survivorship in Equity (t); so, also, where conveyed to purchasers, not otherwise in partnership, as joint tenants, but for the purpose of a joint adventure or speculation (it); "the purchase of the land being made to the intent that they shall become partners in the improvement; it being only the substratum for an adventure in the profits of which it was intended they should be concerned" (x).

Or being tenants in common of mortgage, buy equity of redemption, or purchase for purpose of trade or speculation;

If joint tenants subsequently contract to deal with the property as if in trade, or if other dealings rebut the presumption of joint tenancy (y), e.g., if they agree to, and do, or, being joint tenants, subsequently agree to hold make mutual wills by which the survivor is to take for life, and the property is on her death to be held in trust for others (z), the Court will receive evidence of such contract or dealing, and will hold that there is no survivorship (a).