From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boehringer v. Schmid

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 14, 1930
173 N.E. 220 (N.Y. 1930)

Opinion

Argued October 2, 1930

Decided October 14, 1930

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Frank C. Brendel for appellants. George B. Doyle for respondents.


Matter of Klatzl ( 216 N.Y. 83) must be regarded as conclusively holding that "The creation of a tenancy by the entirety is permitted by law and a husband may by conveyance to himself and his wife create such a tenancy, thereby reserving to himself the same rights he would have under a deed from a third person." Although BARTLETT, Ch. J., concurred (in result only) in the opinion of SEABURY, J., he said: "* * * I see no reason why the husband could not convey to his wife such an estate as she would get by a similar deed to them from a third person, and at the same time reserve for himself the same rights he would have under such a deed." This must be taken as a concurrence in the rule, if not in the reasoning, of Judge COLLIN'S opinion on this point.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, KELLOGG, O'BRIEN and HUBBS, JJ., concur; LEHMAN, J., not sitting.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Boehringer v. Schmid

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 14, 1930
173 N.E. 220 (N.Y. 1930)
Case details for

Boehringer v. Schmid

Case Details

Full title:MARGARET BOEHRINGER et al., Appellants, v. EDWIN SCHMID et al., Respondents

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 14, 1930

Citations

173 N.E. 220 (N.Y. 1930)
173 N.E. 220

Citing Cases

Therrien v. Therrien

By judicial decision or statute a contrary result has been obtained in some jurisdictions. Matter of Horler,…

Matter of Driscoll

That question, however, is immaterial as these parcels form no part of the taxable gross estate and the…