First National Bank v. Hall

161 S.E. 484, 201 N.C. 787, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 97
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 16, 1931·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Adams, J.

Tenancy by entireties, or by tbe entirety, is the tenancy by which, husband and wife at common law hold land conveyed or devised to them by a single instrument, which does not require them to hold it by another character of tenancy. Littleton, sec. 291; Tiffany, Eeal Property, sec. 194. The husband and wife take the whole estate as one person. Each has the whole; neither has a separate estate or interest; but the survivor of the marriage whether husband or wife is entitled to the entire estate, and the right of the survivor cannot be defeated by the other’s conveyance of the property to a stranger. The provisions of the Constitution relating to married women and the statutes enacted in pursuance thereof made no change in the estate. Jones v. Smith, 149 N. C., 318; McKinnon v. Caulk, 167 N. C., 411; Davis v. Bass, 188 N. C., 201.

At common law the husband was entitled to the use and control of the estate and to all the rents and profits during the marriage and had a right to execute a mortgage on the property to the extent of his common-law interest. With us it is held that these common-law incidents still adhere to the estate. Long v. Barnes, 87 N. C., 330; West v. R. R., 140 N. C., 620; Dorsey v. Kirkland, 177 N. C., 520; Davis v. Bass, supra.

In the case under consideration the husband, S. II. Earnest, had a right to execute a mortgage “to the extent of its worth,” including the rents, profits, and usufruct of the property; but he had no right to encumber the land so as to defeat the interest of the survivor. Upon his death the lien of the mortgage was ipso facto canceled and the entire estate was vested in the survivor. Bynum v. Wicker, 141 N. C., 95; Dorsey v. Kirkland, supra; Trust Co. v. Broughton, 193 N. C., 320.

There was no error in continuing the restraining order to the final hearing.

Judgment affirmed.

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

First National Bank v. Hall, 161 S.E. 484, 201 N.C. 787, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 97 (N.C. 1931).

161 S.E. 484 (First National Bank v. Hall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Finney v. Smith
141 B.R. 94 (E.D. Virginia, 1992)
In re Foreclosure of Deed of Trust Recorded in Book 911
272 S.E.2d 893 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Strange v. Sink
218 S.E.2d 196 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1975)
Harris v. Parker
195 S.E.2d 121 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1973)
Terrell v. Terrell
155 S.E.2d 511 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
Duplin County v. Jones
147 S.E.2d 603 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
North Carolina Board of Architecture v. Lee
142 S.E.2d 643 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
Woolard v. Smith
94 S.E.2d 466 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Grant v. Toatley
94 S.E.2d 305 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Nesbitt v. Fairview Farms, Inc.
80 S.E.2d 472 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)