JOINT TENANCY-EFFECT OF WORD JOINTLY -PAROL EVIDENCE AS TO INTENT

The common law rule was well settled that a conveyance to two or more, not husband and wife, made them joint tenants, not tenants in common, unless language was used to show an intent that they were not to be joint tenants. The reason for such a rule having passed, the modern rule is to the opposite effect-two or more conveyees, with certain exceptions, are presumptively tenants in common. The Illinois statute, for example, declares that no estate in joint tenancy in any lands ... shall be held or claimed under any grant . . . unless the premises therein mentioned shall expressly be thereby declared to pass, not in tenancy in common, but in joint tenancy; and every such estate . . . shall be deemed to be in tenancy in common. . . The Michigan statute, though differing a bit in expression, is to the same effect. It states that all grants and devises of lands, made to two or more persons, except as provided in the following section, shall be construed to create estates in common, and not in joint tenancy, unless expressly declared to be in joint tenancy. It will be noted that the Illinois statute in terms requires that the estate shall be declared to pass, not in tenancy in common, but in joint tenancy in order to create a joint estate. The court there has held, however, that it will suffice to state that this conveyance is to the conveyees as joint tenants ; it is not necessary that the negative be expressed