Zorntlein v. . Bram
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision.
- LERBS v. LERBS (Kings County Court 1911)
- Armondi v. Dunham (New York Supreme Court 1927)
- Carey c. Griffin (New York Supreme Court 1901)
- Reynolds v. Strong (New York Supreme Court 1894)
- Wurz v. Wurz (New York Supreme Court 1891)
- O'Connor v. McMahon (New York Supreme Court 1889)
- Woodman v. Penfield (New York Supreme Court 1889)
- Radcliffe v. Radcliffe (New York Supreme Court 1987)
- Dievendorf v. Dievendorf (New York County Courts 1950)
- In re the Estate of Collins (New York Surrogate's Court 1935)
- In re the Estate of Sitkin (New York Surrogate's Court 1934)
- Armondi v. Dunham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1927)
- In re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of Klatzl (N.Y. 1915)
- Goodrich v. Village of Otego (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1914)
- Mardt v. Scharmach (New York Supreme Court 1909)
- Holmes v. Holmes (Kan. 1905)
- Hiles v. Fisher (New York Supreme Court 1893)
- Donahue v. Hubbard (Mass. 1891)
- Cloos v. Cloos (New York Supreme Court 1890)
- Joos v. Fey (New York City Court 1890)
- Coleman v. Bresnaham (New York Supreme Court 1889)
- Gardenier v. Furey (New York Supreme Court 1888)
- In re Grove (New York Surrogate's Court 1888)
- Orphan Asylum v. White (New York Surrogate's Court 1888)
- In re Stiles' Estate (New York Surrogate's Court 1888)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This case is controlled by the decision in Bertles v. Nunan (92 N. Y. 152). The common-law rule, that when land is conveyed to husband and wife they do not take as tenants in common, or as joint tenants, but each becomes seized of the entirety, jper tout and no't per my, and that on the death of either the whole survives to the other, was held in that case to be still subsisting in this State, notwithstanding the acts in relation to married women. The act of 1880 (Chap. 472), which allows husband and wife to make division between themselves of lands thus held, was before us in that case, but was not regarded as abrogating the former rule. At all events it could not affect the title in question in this action as the conveyance to Jacob Bram and his wife was made in 1878. The seizin of the entirety by each, and the right of survivorship, could not be divested by a subsequent statute, as those rights vested by virtue of the grant and not of mere succession. The act of 1880 could not, therefore, so operate as to authorize either the husband or wife separately to convey to a third party. The deed executed by Mrs. Bram to the plaintiff conveyed no title and he could not maintain an action for partition.
The exceptions to the conclusions of the referee to the contrary are well taken and require a reversal of the judgment.
It is unnecessary to discuss the extraneous questions raised in the respondent’s points as to the circumstances attending the purchase of the property. ,
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.