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.

22. Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec. 65, Robinson v. Eagle, 29 Ark. 202; Kunz v. Kurtz, 8 Del. Ch. 404, 68 Atl. 450; Dotson v. Faulken-berg, (Ind.) 116 N. E. 577; *Moore v. Moore, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 651; Craft v. Wilcox, 4 Gill. (Md.) 504; Shaw v. Hearsey, 5 Mass. 521; Hemingway v. Scales, 42 Miss. 10, 97 Am. Dec. 425; Hardenbergh v. Hardenbergh, 10 N. J. L. 42, 18 Am. Dec. 371; Jackson v. Stevens, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 114; Harrison v. Ray, 108 N. C. 215, 7 L. R. A. 722; Noblitt v. Beebe, 3 Ore. 4; Diver v. Diver, 56 Pa. St. 106; Bennett v. Hutchens (Tenn.) 179

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.

24. Robinson v. Eagle, 29 Ark. 202; Kunz v. Kurtz, 8 Del. Ch. 404; Carver v. Smith, 90 Ind. 223 46 Am. Rep. 210; Flaherty v. Columbus, 41 App. D. C. 525; English v. English 66 Fla. 427, 63 So. 822; Baker v. Stewart, 40 Kan. 442, 2 L. R. A. 434, 10 Am. St. Rep. 213; Marburg v. Cole, 49 Md. 402, 33 Am. Rep. 266; Pray v. Stebbins, 141 Mass. 219, 55 Am. Rep. 462; Lewis' Appeal, 85 Mich. 340, 24 Am. St. Rep. 94, 48 N. W. 580; Gresham v. King, 65 Miss. 387, 4 So. 120; Frost v. Frost, 200 Mo. 474, 98

Sec. 194 ]

Co-Ownership.

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.

26-27. Whittlesey v. Fuller, 11

Real Property.

[Sec. 194

- Rights of control and disposition. At common law the husband, having the right to control and dispose of his wife's land during his life,28 is entitled to all the rents and profits of land held by entireties, and he can convey the land, so as to divest the wife of all right of possession during his life and it seems, in case he survives her, to vest in the grantee an absolute estate.29 In at least one state this right of control and disposition in the husband is unaffected by modern legislation in regard to the property of married women30 but in others it has, as being, not an incident of the tenancy by entireties, but merely one of the husband's common law marital rights, been regarded as taken away by the married woman's property acts, so that the husband can no longer assert an exclusive right to the rents and profits or divest the wife of the right to share therein by making a conveyance to a third person.31

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.