Entirety

This word denotes the whole, in contradistinction to moiety, which denotes the half part. A husband and wife, when jointly seised of land, are seised by entireties, and not pur mie, as joint tenants are. Jacob; 2 Kent, Comm. 132; 4 Kent, Comm. 362; 3 Pa. St. 350, 367.

This word denotes the whole, in contradistinction to moiety, which deuote's the half part. A husband and wife, when jointly seized of land, are seized by entireties per tout and not per my et per tout, as joint tenants are. Jacob, Law Diet.; 2 Kent 132. See In re Bramberry's Estate, 156 Pa. 628, 27 Atl. 405, 22 L. R. A. 594, 36 Am. St. Rep. 64. Per Tout et now Peb My. make the husband and wife tenants of the entirety; Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Scott, 3fe S. 0. 34, L6 s.. y v. Bing- 60 -Miss. 795, r. g a... 352; Noblitt v. Beebe, 23 Or. 4. 35 pac. 248; Chambers v. Chambers, 92 Tenn. 7<j7. l-:; S. \. Such an estate has the quality of survivorship, where!. y the ii-ir. of the survivor to the exelusion of the beirs of the fir ceased; Marburg v. Cole, 49 Md. i Rep. 266; Kunz v. Kurtz, 8 Del. Ch. -i Atl. 450. There can he no partition bet tenants by entireties; Chandler v. Cheney, 37 Ind. 391; no interest in it can be » execution for the debts of the husband or wile; id.; Almond v. Bonnell, 76 111 But in Hiles v. Fisher, 144 X. Y. 306, 39 N. B. 337, 30 L. R. A. 305, 43 Am. St. Re; a purchaser at a mortgage foreclosure sale which covered the property held in entirely and in which the wife did not join was held to become a tenant in common with the wife as to such property; and to the same effect Washburn v. Burns,:;i X. J. L. 18. In Buttlar v. Rosenblath, 42 X. J. Eq. 651, 9 Atl. 095, 59 Am. Rep. 52, an act which in terms preserves to a married woman her separate right of property was held to change the status of an estate by entirety to the extent of limiting the rights of the creditors of the husband to subject the use of only his half of such an estate to the payment of his debts. That a judgment against the husband is not a lien on real estite owned by himself and wife by entirety, and that they can convey it free and clear of an unsatisfied judgment lien against him (valid on laud owned by him personally), is held: Davis v. Clark. 26 Ind. 424, 89 Am. Dec. 471, where it is said; "As between husband and wife, there is but one owner, and that is neither the one nor the other, but both together. The estate belongs as well to the wife as to the husband." The husband cannot therefore possess any interest separate from bis wife, nor can he alienate or encumber the estate. From the peculiar nature of this estate and from the legal relation of the parties, there must be unity of estate, unity of possession, unity of control, and unity in conveying or encumbering it; and it necessarily results that it cannot be seized and sold upon execution for the separate debts of either the husband or the wife; followed in Ilulett v. Inlow. 7.7 Ind. 411^. 26 Am. Rep. 64; Barren Creek Ditching Co. v. Beck, 99 Ind. 247; and to the same effect, Alios v. Lyon. 216 Pa, 604, 66 Atl. SI, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 463, lit: A Rep. 791. 9 Ann. Cas. 137; Dickey v. verse. 117 Mich. 449, 76 X. W. SO. 72 Am. St. Rep. 568; Lank v. Corder, 32 W. \ a. •J.:l'. 9 s. B. 220; Oole Mfg. Co. v. Colder. 95 Tena 115, 31 S. W. 1000, 30 L. R. A. 315, 49 Am. St. Rep. 921; Ray v. Long, 132 X. 0. v.U. 44 S. E. t'.r.l'. mortgage to husband and wife, the wife died, and the bond was paid, it was held that onehalf the proceeds belonged to the wife's legal representatives; In re Baum, 121 App. Div. 49G, 106 N. Y. Supp. 113. Where a wife pays for land and consents that the title may be taken in the name of herself and husband, they hold as tenants in entirety, and a conveyance by the husband passes the rights to the possession of the land during their joint lives, and to the fee in case the husband survive; Hiles v. Fisher, 67 Hun 229, 22 X. Y. Supp. 795: Phelps v. Simons, 159 Mass. 415, 34 N. E. 657, 38 Am. St. Rep. 430. In Merritt v. Whitlock, 200 Pa. 50, 49 Atl. 786, it was said it might be considered as still an open question whether husband and wife may not, since the married woman's acts, take, as well as hold in common, if there be a clear actual intent, notwithstanding the presumption to the contrary. But a later case in the same state holds that as the quality of the estate is determined at its inception, that estate could not be stripped of any of its incidents except by express statutory provision existing at the time of its inception; Alles v. Lyon, 216 Pa. 604, 66 Atl. 81, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 463, 116 Am. St Rep. 791, 9 Ann. Cas. 137. This estate, where it exists as at common law, is not affected by the statutes for the protection of married women, nor by statutes providing that conveyances to two or more persons shall be deemed to create a tenancy in common and not a joint tenancy; Kunz v. Kurtz, 8 Del. Ch. 404, 68 Atl. 450. As to the effect of the married woman's acts on estates held by entirety, see Married Woman. The divorce of the parties will not sever an estate by entirety; Alles v. Lyon, 216 Pa. 604, 66 Atl. 81, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 463, 116 Am. St Rep. 791, 9 Ann. Cas. 139; contra, Joerger v. Joerger, 193 Mo. 133, 91 S. W. 918, 5 Ann. Cas. 534; Hayes v. Horton, 46 Or. 597, 81 Pac. 386 (by changing it into a tenancy in common).

The whole, in contradistinction

The whole, in contradistinction to a moiety or part only. When land is conveyed to husband and wife, they do not take by moieties, but both are seised of the entirety. 2 Kent, Comm.132; 4 Kent, Comm. 362. VParceners, on the other hand, have not an entirety of interest, but each is properly entitled to the whole of a distinct moiety. 2 Bl. Comm. 188. The word is also used to designate that which the law considers as one whole, and not capable of being divided into parts. Thus,a judgment, it is held, is an entirety, and, if void as toone of the two defendants, cannot be valid as to the other. So, if a contract is an entirety, no part of the consideration is due until the whole has been performed.

[L. Fr. entierU, from entier, whole.] The whole, in contradistinction to a moiety or part only. When land is conyeyed to husband and wife, they do not take by moieties, but both are sdsed of the entirety. 2 Kent's Com, 132. 4 Id. 362. Parceners, on the other hand, haye not an entirety of interest, but each is properly entitled to the whole of a distinct moiety. 2 Bl, Com, 188.