Boehringer v. Schmid

New York Court of Appeals

Boehringer v. Schmid

173 N.E. 220, 254 N.Y. 355, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 1050

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 14, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 173 N.E. 220 (Boehringer v. Schmid) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boehringer v. Schmid, 173 N.E. 220, 254 N.Y. 355, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 1050 (N.Y. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Matter of Klatzl (216 N. Y. 83) must be regarded as conclusively holding that “ The creation of a tenancy by the entirety is permitted by law and a husband may by conveyance to himself and his wife create such a tenancy, thereby reserving to himself the same rights he would have under a deed from a third person.” Although Bartlett, Ch. J., concurred fin result only) in the opinion of Seabtjry, J., he said: “ * * * I see no reason why the husband could not convey to his wife such an estate as she would get by a similar deed to them from a third person, and at the same time reserve for himself the same rights he would have under such a deed.” This must be taken as a concurrence in the rule, if not in the reasoning, of Judge Collin’s opinion on this point.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., not sitting.

Judgment affirmed.

*357 I

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Matter of Klatzl (216 N. Y. 83) must be regarded as conclusively holding that “ The creation of a tenancy by the entirety is permitted by law and a husband may by conveyance to himself and his wife create such a tenancy, thereby reserving to himself the same rights he would have under a deed from a third person.” Although Bartlett, Ch. J., concurred fin result only) in the opinion of Seabtjry, J., he said: “ * * * I see no reason why the husband could not convey to his wife such an estate as she would get by a similar deed to them from a third person, and at the same time reserve for himself the same rights he would have under such a deed.” This must be taken as a concurrence in the rule, if not in the reasoning, of Judge Collin’s opinion on this point.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., not sitting.

Judgment affirmed.

*357 I

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 N.E. 220, 254 N.Y. 355, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 1050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boehringer-v-schmid-ny-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack