“Of course between the period of January 1, 1914 and April 15, 1919, the property acquired by a husband and wife upon the death of either descended to the heirs of the one who died. During that period the doctrine of tenancy by the entireties was not in force in this State....”
How later courts described this case
- “Of course between the period of January 1, 1914 and April 15, 1919, the property acquired by a husband and wife upon the death of either descended to the heirs of the one who died. During that period the doctrine of tenancy by the entireties was not in force in this State....”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Swepston, Justice.
*55 I concur in tlie opinion prepared by Justice Burnett in the above case for the reasons stated therein. I think it well'to add as a practical matter that it would be utterly unworkable to hold that the mere registration of a deed by one tenant in common purporting to convey the entire property to a third party-would be an ouster of other tenants in common, in the absence of possession by said grantee under said deed so as to amount to adverse possession.
Such a rule would require every tenant in common to go to the Register’s Office at frequent intervals to examine the records for such a deed. That office would be so flooded with tenants in common that the Register would be unable to function.
It is the adverse-possession under the deed that effects an ouster, but not merely the deed subsequent to and not constituting a part of the chain of title of a tenant in common.