Case v. Owen
| Decision Date | 18 October 1894 |
| Docket Number | 16,981 |
| Parties | Case et al. v. Owen et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Hamilton Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
L. O Clifford, T. J. Kane and R. K. Kane, for appellants.
J. A Roberts and M. Vestal, for appellees.
The only question involved in this case relates to the construction of the following deed, viz:
It is contended by the appellants, that under this deed, Lydia Reese and John Reese took as tenants in common, while the appellees contend that they took as joint tenants.
An estate in joint tenancy is an estate held by two or more tenants jointly, with an equal right in all to share in the enjoyment of the land during their lives. Upon the death of any one of the tenants, his share vests in the survivors. Four requisites must exist to constitute a joint tenancy, viz:
First. The tenants must have one and the same interest.
Second. The interests must accrue by one and the same conveyance.
Third. The interests must commence at one and the same time.
Fourth. It must be held by one and the same undivided possession. 6 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law, 891.
A joint tenancy can be created in no other way than by purchase, and its distinguishing feature is that of survivorship.
The doctrine of joint tenancy is not favored by the American law, and the rules relating to such estates have been greatly modified by statute in most of the States of the Union.
Our statute, section 3341, Revision of 1894, provides that all conveyances and devises of land, or of any interest therein, made to two or more persons shall be construed to create estates in common and not in joint tenancy, unless it shall be expressed therein that the grantees or devisees shall hold the same in joint tenancy and to the survivor of them, or it shall manifestly appear, from the tenor of the instrument, that it was intended to create an estate in joint tenancy.
This statute completely reverses the ancient common law rule, for joint tenancy was a favorite of the ancient common law, and no special words or limitations were necessary to call it into existence, but, on the other hand, words or circumstances of negation were indispensable to avoid it. Freeman...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal of Garland
...C. L. 811, 815; 17 Am. & English Ency of Law, p. 649, and cases cited; Stetson v. Eastman, 84 Me. 366, 24 A. 868; Case v. Owen. 139 Ind. 22, 38 N. E. 395, 47 Am. St Rep. 253; Denigan v. San Francisco Sav. Union Soc., 127 Cal. 142, 59 P. 390, 78 Am. St. Rep. 35; Robinson v. Mut. Sav. Bank, 7......
-
Witzel v. Witzel
...v. Neely, Wyo., 365 P.2d 196. It might be added that Walker v. Grogan, D.C.Mich., 283 F. 530; Thornburg v. Wiggins, supra; Case v. Owen, 139 Ind. 22, 38 N.E. 395; Wilken v. Young, 144 Ind. 1, 41 N.E. 68, 590, 55 Am.St.Rep. 162; Hannan v. Towers, 3 Harr. & J. 147, 5 Am.Dec. 427; Fladung v. R......
-
Hennigh v. Hennigh
...heirs and assigns'. As to the interpretation to be given to the words 'Joint Tenants' appearing in the deed, we quote from Case v. Owen, 139 Ind. 22, 38 N.E. 395, wherein the court 'Our statute (section 3341, Rev.St.1894; section 2922, Rev.St.1881) provides that 'all conveyances and devises......
-
Johnson v. Landefeld
... ... a son under a subsequent will of the grantor husband. The ... legal effect of the deed in this case is to convey to the ... wife an interest in the entire estate equal to that reserved ... by the husband, and the express intent is to create an ... joint tenancy of any sort. See Thornburg v. Wiggins, ... 135 Ind. 178, 34 N.E. 999, 22 L.R.A. 42, 41 Am.St.Rep. 422; ... Case v. Owen, 139 Ind. 22, 38 N.E. 395, 47 ... Am.St.Rep. 253; Martin v. Smith, 5 Bin., Pa., 16, 6 ... Am.Dec. 395; Farr v. Trustees of Grand Lodge A. O. U ... ...