1 Preston, Estates, 134.

30. Pray v. Stebbins, 141 Mass. 219, 55 Am. Rep. 462; In Bank of Greenville v. Gornto, 161 N. Car. 341, 77 S. E. 222 it was decided that the husband could make a lease of the property, though in Jones v. Smith, 149 N. C. 318, 62 S. E. 1092 it had been said that neither spouse had an interest capable of conveyance.

That such a statute gives no right to the wife to a share of the crops grown on land held by entir-ities, see Morrill v. Morrill, 138 Mich. 112, 4 Ann. Cas. 1104, 110 Am. St. Rep. 306, 101 N. W. 209.

31. Branch v. Polk, 61 Ark. 388, 55 Am. St. Rep. 266; Shinn v. Shinn, 42 Kan. 1, 4 L. R. A. 224, 21 Pac. 813; Rezabeck v. Reza-beck, (Mo. App.), 192 S. W. 107; Buttlar v. Rosenblath, 42 N. J. Eq. 651, 59 Am. Rep. 52, 9 Atl. 695; Collins v. Babbitt, 67 N. J. Eq. 175, 58 Atl. 485; Hiles v. Fisher, 144

In those states in which the husband's common law rights of control and disposition are no longer recognized, the question of whether or to what extent either of the spouses can alone make a disposition of the property or of a partial interest therein is one of considerable difficulty. In some states a conveyance by either spouse is absolutely nugatory,32 but in others it is regarded as effective for the purpose of entitling the grantee to one-half the rents and profits, and to the whole property in case the grantor is the one who survives.33 But apart from any question of the effect, during coverture, of a conveyance by the husband alone, such a conveyance might frequently, it seems, become operative, upon the theory of estoppel, in case the husband survives the wife.34

Some of the modern statutes authorizing the wife to convey her property as a feme sole have been construed as allowing her to dispose of a half interest under the tenancy, subject to the right of survivorship existing in the husband.35 She has obviously no such power at common law, nor has she such power in states in which it is denied to the husband.

N. Y. 306, 30 L. R. A. 305, 43 Am. St. Rep. 762, 39 N. E. 339; McCur-dy v. Canning, 64 Pa. St. 41; Cole Man'f'g. Co. v. Collier, 95 Tenn. 115, 30 L. R. A. 315, 49 Am. St. Rep. 921; Corinth v. Emery, 63 Vt. 505, 25 Am. St. Rep. 780.

32. Chandler v. Cheney, 37 Ind. 391; Naylor v. Minock, 96 Mich. 182, 35 Am. St. Rep. 595, 55 N. W. 664; McDuff v. Beauchamp, 50 Miss. 531; Gray v. Bailey, 117 N. Car. 439, 23 S. E. 318. See editorial note in 12 Columbia Law Rev. 540.

33. Branch v. Polk, 61 Ark. 388, 54 Am. St. Rep. 266; Buttlar v. Rosenblath, 42 N. J. Eq. 651, 59 Am. Rep. 52 (semble); Schultz v. Ziegler, 80 N. J. Eq. 199. 83 Atl. 968, Servis v. Dorn, 76 N. J. Eq. 241, 76 Atl. 246; Bilder v. Robinson, 73 N. J. Eq. 169, 67 Atl. 828; Hiles v. Fisher, 141 N. Y. 306 43 Am. St. Rep. 762; Goodrich v. Otego, 216 N. Y. 113, 110 N. E. 162, (semble); Howell v. Folsom, 38 Oreg. 184, 63 Pac. 116.

34. Hume v. Hopkins, 140 Mo. 65, 41 S. W. 784; Hood v. Mercer, 150 N. C. 699, 64 S. E. 897; Fleek v. Zillhaver, 117 Pa. 213, 12 Atl. 420; In re Meyer's Estate, 232 Pa. 89, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 205, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1240, 81 Atl. 145; Ber-rigan v. Fleming, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 271.

35. Branch v. Polk, 61 Ark.

- Liability for individual debts. As, at common law, the husband has a right of control and disposition, to the same extent he has an interest which is subject to the claims of his creditors,36 and so if he has, by reason of legislation, a right to dispose of the land as regards a half interest, such interest is presumably subject to claims against him.37 In a number of states, however, he has been held to have no interest accessible to his creditors, for the reason, either that he has alone no alienable interest in the land,38 or that a sale under execution would in effect render the wife's property liable for his debts, in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision.39 Occasionally a sale in behalf of his creditors has been regarded as valid for the purpose of giving to the purchaser a possibility of acquiring the property by the death of the wife before the husband, with no right in the meanwhile, however, as regards possession or the rents and profits.40

388, 54 Am. St Rep. 266; Buttlar v. Rosenblath, 42 N. J. Eq. 651, 59 Am Rep. 52; Hiles v. Fisher, 144 N. Y. 306, 43 Am. St. Rep. 762, 30 L. R. A. 305, 39 N. E. 339.

36. Hall v. Stephens, 65 Mo. 670; Beach v. Hollister, 3 Hun (N. Y.) 519; Ward v. Krumm, 54 How. Pr. 95 (semble);Roanes v. Archer, 4 Leigh (Va.) 550; Farmers Bank v. Corder, 32 W. Va. 232, 9 S. E. 220; Ames v. Norman, 4 Sneed 683, 70 Am. Dec. 269; Bennett v. Child, 19 Wis. 362, 88 Am. Dec. 692.

37. Buttlar v. Rosenblath, 42 N. J. Eq. 651, 59 Am. Rep. 52, 9 Atl. 695; Servis v. Dorn, (N. J. Ch.) 76 Atl. 246; Mardt v. Schar-mack, 65 N. Y. Misc. 124, 119 N. Y. Supp. 449.

38. Davis v. Clark, 26 Ind. 424, 89 Am. Dec. 471; Thornburg v. Wiggins, 135 Ind. 178, 22 L. R. A. 42, 41 Am. St. Rep. 422; Almond v. Bonnell, 76 111. 536; Shinn v. Shinn, 42 Kan. 1, 4 L. R. A. 224; Dickey v. Converse, 117 Mich.

449, 72 Am. St. Rep. 568, 76 N. W. 80; Bruce v. Nicholson, 109 N. Car. 205, 26 Am. St. Rep. 562; Hood v. Mercer, 150 N. Car. 699, 64 S. E. 897; In re Meyer's Estate, 232 Pa. 89, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 205, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1240, 81 Atl. 145; see Farmer's Bank v. Corder, 32 W. Va. 232, 9 S. E. 220.

And so as to crops grown on the land, these being held by the same title as the land itself. Pat-ton v. Rankin, 68 Ind. 245, 34 Am. Rep. 254; Dickey v. Converse, 117 Mich. 449, 72 Am. St. Rep. 568, 76 N. W. 80; Sharp v. Baker (Ind. App.) 96 N. E. 627, 99 N. E. 627, 99 N. E. 44; Citizens Sav. & Trust Co. v. Jenkins, 91 Vt. 13, 99 Atl. 250.

39. McCurdy v. Canning, 64 Pa. St. 41; Corinth v. Emery, 63 Vt. 505, 25 Am. St. Rep. 780; Mc-Cubbin v. Stanford, 85 Md. 380, 60 Am. St. Rep. 329, 37 Atl. 214; Shinn v. Shinn, 42 Kan. 1, 4 L. R. A. 224, 21 Pac. 813.

In Pennsylvania it has been decided that a judgment against the husband, rendered before the wife's death, binds the property after her death as belonging to him,41 but that nevertheless the husband and wife can, by joint conveyance, transfer the property to another free from the lien of such a judgment.42 In other states their ability so to do has been referred to the absolutely nugatory character of such a judgment as against the interest of either.43

Even in jurisdictions where neither the husband or wife has an interest which can be subjected to his or her individual debts, the property held by entireties, is, it seems, subject to their joint debts.44 And even in states where the creditors of the husband are otherwise disabled to proceed against his interest in property held by entireties, it will not be protected if he has property, purchased with his own funds, conveyed to himself and wife, merely to place it out of the reach of existing creditors.45

- Termination. There can be no partition of land held by the entirety, since this would imply a separate interest in each tenant, contrary to the underlying theory

40. Simpson v. Biffle, 63 Ark. 289, 38 S. W. 345; Cole Mfg. Co. v. Collier, 95 Tenn. 115, 30 L. R. A. 315, 49 Am. St. Rep. 921; Cochran v. Kerney, 9 Bush (Ky) 199 Hetzel v Lincoln, 216 Pa. 60, 64 Atl. 866.

41. Fleek v. Zillhaver. 117 Pa. 213, 12 Atl. 420.

42. Beihl v. Martin, 236 Pa. 519, 84 Atl. 953; See article by Harry Shapiro, Esq., 61 University of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 467 et seg.

43. Jordan v. Reynolds, 105 Md. 288, 66 Atl. 37, 9 L. R. A. N. S.

1026; Hood v. Mercer, 150 N. Car. 699, 64 S. E. 897.

44. Union Nat. Bank of Munice v. Finley, 180 Ind. 470, 103 N. E. 110; Sharpe v. Baker, 51 Ind. App. 547, 96 N. E. 627, 99 N. E. 44;

Ades v. Caplin, 132 Md. 66.

45. McConnell v. Martin, 52 Ind. 432; Newlove v. Callaghan, 86 Mich. 297, 24 Am. St. Rep. 124; Schliess v. Thayer, 170 Mich. 395, 136 N. W. 365; French v. Mehan, 56 Pa. 286; Corinth v. Emery, 63 Vt. 505, 25 Am. St. Rep. 780.

Real Property.

[Sec. 195 of the tenancy.46 But a divorce or dissolution of the marriage is ordinarily regarded as terminating the tenancy by entireties, and as rendering the two owners either tenants in common or joint tenants, as they would have been in case they had never been married,47 and thereafter partition may be obtained by either.48 In a few states, however, it is denied that the tenancy ceases upon divorce.49

The tenancy obviously comes to an end upon the death of either husband or wife, the survivor thereafter holding the land in severalty.