Morris v. McCarty

32 N.E. 938, 158 Mass. 11, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 218
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 5, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 32 N.E. 938 (Morris v. McCarty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Morris v. McCarty, 32 N.E. 938, 158 Mass. 11, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 218 (Mass. 1893).

Opinion

Allen, J.

The deed could not have the effect to create an estate in entirety, because the grantees were not in fact husband and wife, though described as such by the grantors. The question therefore is whether the grantees became joint tenants or tenants in common.

The deed was given in 1886, and is therefore subject to St. 1885, c. 237, under which a deed must be construed to create an estate in common, unless, by its true construction, it is expressed therein that the grantees are to take the land jointly or as joint tenants, or to them and the survivor of them, or unless it manifestly appears from the tenor of the instrument that it was intended to create an estate in joint tenancy.

An estate in entirety is an estate in joint tenancy, but with the limitation that during their joint lives neither the husband nor the wife can destroy the right of survivorship without the assent of the other party. Donahue v. Hubbard, 154 Mass. 537, and cases there cited. The doctrine of survivorship is the dis[13]*13tinguishing incident of title by joint tenancy. 4 Kent Com. 360. On looking at the deed under which the tenant claims, it is quite plain that the grantors intended to create an estate in joint tenancy, as distinguished from an estate in common. The particular form of estate in joint tenancy which they contemplated fails; but they took great pains to exclude the idea of an estate in common, and the effect of the deed is to create an estate in joint tenancy, without the special features of an estate in entirety. Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

G. Kevin Powell v. Estate of Gary Powell
14 N.E.3d 46 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2014)
Nickless v. Lodi (In Re Lodi)
375 B.R. 33 (D. Massachusetts, 2007)
Coraccio v. Lowell Five Cents Savings Bank
612 N.E.2d 650 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1993)
Fuss v. Fuss (No. 2)
368 N.E.2d 276 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1977)
Pennsylvania Bank & Trust Co. v. Thompson
247 A.2d 771 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1968)
Mitchner v. Taylor
412 S.W.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1965)
Coleman v. Jackson
286 F.2d 98 (D.C. Circuit, 1960)
Maxwell v. Saylor
58 A.2d 355 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1948)
Edge v. Barrow
55 N.E.2d 5 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Thornton v. Pierce
194 A. 897 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Mitchell v. Frederick
170 A. 733 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1934)
McGillicuddy v. Devlin
181 N.E. 119 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Heckman v. Nye
15 Pa. D. & C. 493 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 1930)
Ames v. Chandler
265 Mass. 428 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Bernatavicius v. Bernatavicius
156 N.E. 685 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Raptes v. Pappas
155 N.E. 787 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Raptes v. Cheros
1 Davis. L. Ct. Cas. 595 (Massachusetts Land Court, 1927)
McKee v. Bevins
138 Tenn. 249 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1917)
Hoag v. Hoag
99 N.E. 521 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
McLaughlin v. Rice
70 N.E. 52 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 N.E. 938, 158 Mass. 11, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-mccarty-mass-1893.