The decision in Bertles v. Nunan is supported by the great weight of authority in other jurisdictions in this country, but in some of the States it has been held that as a consequence of statutory provisions substantially like those in this State, conferring upon married women the right to take and hold separate property to their own use, free from the control of their husbands, as femes sole, estates by entireties have been abrogated and turned into tenancies in common. In the States where this construction has been put upon the married women's acts, the question of the rights of the parties to the usufruct during their joint lives could scarcely arise, because it is one of the generally admitted results of this legislation that the common-law right vested in the husband to the rents, profits and use of his wife's real estate during their joint lives has been destroyed.

It is, however, a much more serious question what the effect of this legislation is upon the common-law right of the husband to the usufruct during the joint lives of the husband and wife, of lands conveyed to them jointly, in those States where it is held that notwithstanding the new legislation a conveyance to husband and wife retains its common-law character and incidents. If the right of the husband to use during the joint lives of lands held under this tenure was a right growing out of an incident to this particular species of tenancy, in other words, if it was one of its specific and essential characteristics, then it would be difficult to segregate this right from the other rights incident to and flowing from the tenancy, and to say that while the estate by entireties continues this feature of it was intended to be taken away. But the taking away from the husband the usufruct during the joint lives of lands conveyed to husband and wife would not be inconsistent with the continuance of tenancies by entireties, provided the common-law right to the usufruct was not an incident of the tenancy, but of the marital right operating upon property so held, as upon all other real property of the wife. The grand characteristic which distinguishes a tenancy by the entirety from a joint tenancy is its inseverability, whereby neither the husband nor the wife, without the assent of the other, can dispose of any part of the estate so as to affect the right of survivorship in the other. 1 Bl. 182; Wash, on Real Prop. 425. Each is said to be seised of the whole estate, and they do not take by moieties, and the reason assigned in the old books for this anomalous characteristic of this estate is the legal unity of the husband and wife, and the incapacity of the wife to hold a separate and severable estate in lands under a joint conveyance to both. The alleged incapacity of a wife to take and hold lands conveyed to husband and wife as joint tenant or tenant in common with him seems inconsistent with the doctrine which has finally obtained, that by express words of a grant or devise to husband and wife that species of tenure would be created. This was pointed out in Miner v. Brown, 133 N. Y. 308, and authorities were cited to show that where the intention disclosed by the deed or will was to create a tenancy in common that estate would be created. See, also, McDermott v. French, 15 N. J. Eq. 78; Wales v. Coffin, 13 Allen, 213; 1 Wash, on Real Prop. 425. There is a tendency now to regard the creation of an estate by the entirety as resting upon a rule of construction rather than upon a rule of law, and to regard the intention as disclosed by the deed or will creating it as the governing rule for determining whether that estate was created rather than a joint tenancy or tenancy in common. See In re March, 27 Ch. Div. 166, and cases before cited. It was conceded under the old law that husband and wife, who were joint tenants or tenants in common of lands before marriage, remained so afterwards. Coke on Litt. 187b. It would seem to follow that there was no general incapacity in the wife to hold lands with the husband in joint tenancy or as tenant in common. The quality of the estate held by husband and wife as tenants by the entirety, in the aspect of its inseverability has been adverted to. But it is important in view of the subsequent discussion to observe that the wife, as well as the husband, took an estate under a grant to both. Each was said to be seised of the whole, and not of any separate part. Neither could convey his or her interest to the prejudice of the right of survivorship in the other. The common law, however, wholly ignored this principle of equality between husband and wife in regulating the rights of the parties to the enjoyment of the estate during the joint lives. They were not regarded as having a joint seisin or a joint possession for the purpose of the use during coverture. The husband was held to be entitled to the full control and to take the rents and profits of the land during the joint lives to the exclusion of the wife, and he had power to sell, mortgage or lease for the same period, and this life interest was, according to the weight of authority, subject to the claims of his creditors. Barber v. Harris, 15 Wend. 615; Jackson v. McConnel, 19 Id. 175; Meeker v. Wright, 76 N. Y. 262; Bertles v. Nunan, supra; Ames v. Norman, 4 Sneed, 683; Pray v. Stebbins, 141 Mass. 219. But the right of the husband at common law to take the rents and profits of lands held by him and his wife as tenants by the entirety, during coverture, and to assign and dispose of them during that period, did not, we apprehend, spring from the peculiar nature of this estate. He acquired no such right by force of the conveyance itself, and it was not an incident thereto. It was a right which followed the conveyance and inured to the husband from the general principle of the common law which vested in the husband jure uxoris the rents and profits of his wife's lands during their joint lives. 2 Kent Com. 130; Stewart on Husb. & Wife, § 308. The husband took the rents and profits of lands held in entirety upon the same right that he took the rents and profits of her other real estate, whether held by a sole or joint title, namely, his right as husband. In none of the definitions of tenancies by entireties have we found any suggestion that this was one of the incidents or characteristics of such estates, and we think it is plain, both upon reason and analogy, that it had its origin in those harsh principles of common law which destroyed for most purposes the legal identity of the wife and subjected her person and property to the control of her husband.