Hardwick v. Salzi
New York Supreme Court
The facts so far as material appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMaddox, J.
The defendants in the above-entitled action, husband and wife, in January, 1895, became seized of and held the title to the premises in question as tenants by the entirety, per tout et non per my (Zorntlein v. Bram, 100 N. Y. 15; Hiles v. Fisher, 144 id. 313) ; neither could alienate the entire estate without the other uniting, yet, perforce of the statutes in this State relating to the estates of married women, as to the use, rents and profits of an estate by the entirety, while the survivorship is in abeyance, they were “ ten*2ants in common or joint tenants * * *, each entitled to one-half”…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hiles v. . FisherNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Blaechinska v. Howard Mission & Home for Little WanderersNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Goodfellow v. . Mayor, Etc., of City of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Reynolds v. City National BankNew York Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hunt, Et Ux. v. CovingtonSupreme Court of Florida · 1941
- Runco Et Vir v. OstroskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Visidor Corp. v. Borough of Cliffside ParkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1966
- Terenzio v. NelsonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1969
- MacGregor v. MacGregorDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.