Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 04.pdf/524

 The Law of the Land.

491

one are not two, as to a set of cases we pro of it, or confess judgment against it. Of pose to consider. course he can do the two latter things if he At common law joint tenancy was that can find a lender that will give him the possession of property with another that chance, but the lender will probably under upon the death of either the survivor took stand the legal nature of John Smith's title, all the rights in the property. Joint tenancy for it is to be presumed that the lender has been abolished in many of the American has had counsel who has enlightened States except in one particular, as between him. husband and wife. Why this utter helplessness of John Smith Let us suppose a case. John Smith has as to his entirety of title? Take one from $500, and his wife Jane has another $500. one, and one legally remains. Remove John Smith, not by poison or murder, but by good John acquired his by his labor or inherit ance or shrewdness, and his wife has prob old-fashioned methods of a natural death, ably acquired hers in some similar way. and there is left one, Jane Smith, his wife, .They join their capital, and with the $1000 who has an entirety of title equal to that buy a fifty-acre tract of land. The deed, the deceased husband had when living. As the title, is made to John Smith and Jane the survivor she takes the whole title, be Smith his wife. As more frequently hap cause her entirety has survived that of her pens in the reported cases, some relative of joint tenant, her husband. The wife sur John Smith by will bequeaths and devises viving does not take through the husband, to John Smith and Jane his wife the tract but by the paramount grant in the original of land. Or the Joneses by a will devise to conveyance. Suppose some lender did not have counsel Jane — for Jane was a Jones, intermarried with John Smith — and John Smith, her and loaned John Smith £300, and took a husband, the tract of land. In any event, judgment note for the same, which was en whether mentioned as a joint tenancy or tered of record as a lien against John Smith's not, it will be considered in law as such or entirety title in the real estate. An inter equivalent to such. esting experience awaits the lender. John The law declares that they take the title Smith dies before his wife. Jane Smith takes not by moieties, but by entirety, or as the the entirety of the title to the whole place, and Frenchman would say, hold it per tout et non the husband's creditor takes nothing, for the per my. John Smith takes the whole title lien of his judgment was a lien upon a con of the place, and Jane Smith takes the tingency that did not materialize. whole title of the place. These two whole These cases have developed most interest ing points. John Smith may have been a man titles are not two but one title. The lan guage sounds quite mixed to read of the of reckless habits, enjoyed life at the expense of his creditors. They patiently await, then court holding that the husband has the en tire use and the wife has the entire use. It grow anxious, and finally sue him. John sounds as though something was full; and Smith is indifferent. The creditors take judg one hardly knows whether it is the title, or ment by default. They propose to give John Smith, or Jane Smith, his wife, or the him no quarter, and show him no mercy. They propose to sell him out; so the fifty court. The fun begins when they have this title. acres are levied upon by the sheriff under John Smith has a title of entirety on the execution process upon their judgments. entire place, but he can do next to nothing John Smith at this point may try to stay with it unless his wife consents. In the their execution process, for the reasons that reported cases Jane never consented. He the creditors can only sell his title or interest cannot sell it or borrow money on the credit in the land, and that the entirety of title can