Zorntlein v. Bram

17 Jones & S. 476
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Zorntlein v. Bram. Read the opinion of the Court — 63 How. Pr. 240
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided December 30, 1882·Published

Opinion

Opinion by Sedgwick, Ch. J.; Freedman, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Horace Russell, J.,

wrote as follows: “I agree that the questions in this case ought to be passed on by the court of appeals. But in view of the facts that that part of Judge D atteobth’s opinion in Meeker v. Wright, which takes the ground that the married woman’s act of 1862, has in effect overthrown the doctrine, that when real estate is conveyed to husband and wife they take as tenants of the entirety with the right of survivorship, etc., was not concurred in by a majority of the court, I do nob think it a sufficient authority for a decision at variance with all the previous (and indeed subsequent) decisions of this state, and of other states having a similar statute.”

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

Zorntlein v. Bram, 17 Jones & S. 476 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1882).

17 Jones & S. 476 (Zorntlein v. Bram) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.