Legal Opinion

Ward v. Ward

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 3, 1932No. 4-2650PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). The right of sur-vivorship where the real property is held by the entirety has not been destroyed by our statute (Crawford & Moses ’ Digest, § 6232), and it has also been held that the character of such estate by the entirety is not changed by a divorce of the parties. Raulston v. Hall, 66 Ark. 305, 50 S. W. 690; 74 Am. St. Rep. 97; Davies v. Johnson, 124 Ark. 390, 187 S. W. 323; Woodall v. Woodall, 144 Ark. 159, 221 S. W. 463; and Heinrich v. Heinrich, 177 Ark. 250, 6 S. W. (2d) 21.

It is doubtless true, as appellant insists, that this holding is the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Roulston v. HallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
  2. Heinrich v. HeinrichSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  3. Davies v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
  4. Woodall v. WoodallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Warren v. WarrenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1981
  2. Jenkins v. JenkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951
  3. Pope v. McBrideSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
  4. Harbour v. HarbourSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1958
  5. United States v. 48.9 Acres of Land in Pike CountyDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1949

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API