Ohio Butterine Co. v. Hargrave

Citations

• 79 Fla. 458
• 84 So. 376

Syllabus

<p>1. Where land was conveyed to both husband and wife an estate by entirety was created at common law and upon the death of one spouse the entire estate went to the other. The married woman’s laws of this State have not destroyed such estate and they are still recognized.</p> <p>2. From the peculiar nature of such an estate, and from the legal relation of the parties, there must be unity of estate, unity of possession, unity of control and unity in conveying or encumbering it; and it necessarily and logically results that it cannot be seized and sold upon execution for the separate debts of either the husband or the wife. The estate is placed beyond the exclusive control of either of the parties, or the reach of creditors, unless it can be successfully attacked and set aside for fraud.</p> <p>3. The right of the wife to the joint enjoyment of the estate during the marriage is as valuable and sacred as the right of taking the entire estate by survivorship upon the death of her husband. The rights of the wife in the joint property are as sacred as those of the husband, and should be as firmly secured, guarded and protected by the law as are his.</p> <p>4. A bill in equity, containing no allegations of fraud, seeking to sequester a .portion of the rent derived from an estate by entirety to the satisfaction of the judgment against the husband alone is demurrable for want of equity — to permit such a procedure would be as hostile to the-interest of the wife to the joint use, occupation, possession and enjoyment of the estate as the levy of a fi -fa upon the interest of the husband in the land.</p>