Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court, Fort Smith District;

J. V. Bourland, Chancellor; affirmed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

According to the allegations of the complaint, on the llth day of November, 1919, Alice Taylor Callahan, by a quitclaim deed conveyed the two lots in controversy to Joseph E. Parrish and Emma Parrish for the consideration of $1600, $250 of which was paid in cash, and the balance was evidenced by promissory notes executed by Joseph E. and Emma Parrish, who were husband and wife at the time the deed was executed.

Before the delivery of said deed, it was discovered that it did not correctly describe the property intended to be conveyed, and on the 19th day of November, 1919, Alice Taylor Callahan executed a new deed to the property intended to be described, to Joseph E. Parrish for the purpose of correcting the misdescription in the first deed. Upon the delivery of the last deed the plantiff was assured that the mistake had been corrected, and she did not examine the deed and discover that her name as one of the grantors had been erroneously omitted therefrom until after the death of her husband.

For some time prior to the purchase of the property, the plaintiff and her said husband occupied the same, and plaintiff had conducted thereon a grocery store which was her individual business. The cash payment was made out of her earnings and profits in conducting the grocery store. It was the intention of plaintiff and her husband that the title to said property be vested in them as tenants by the entirety.

The prayer of the complaint is for a reformation of the deed by the insertion of the plaintiff's name therein as one of the grantees in said deed and as one of the purchasers of the property. According to the allegations of the answer, Willie Parrish is the son of Joseph E. Parrish and Emma Parrish.

 Joseph E. Parrish died on the 8th day of December, 1920, leaving Willie Parrish and Earl Parrish, his sons and sole heirs at law. They deny that Alice Taylor Callahan intended to convey the property in question to their mother and father as husband and wife in such manner as to create an estate by the entirety. They admit, however, the execution of the deed as set out in plaintiff's complaint. They admit that the description of the property was incorrect as described in the first mentioned deed. The plaintiff filed a demurrer to the answer, which was sustained by the court. The defendants declined to plead further, and a decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff.

 The defendants have appealed.James B. McDonough, for appellant; Davis & AsKby of Chillicothe, Mo., of counsel.

The married woman's act of 1919 destroyed estates by entirety.

2. The deed to Joseph and Emma Parrish, if they were .unmarried, would create a tenancy in common, and not an estate by the entirety. 124 Ark. 167. The deed was to Joseph and Emma Parrish, but not to them as husband and wife.

George F. Youmans, for appellee.

(Judge) Hart, J., (after stating the facts). According to the allegations of the complaint, which are to be taken as true upon demurrer, Joseph E. Parrish and Emma Parrish were husband and wife when the first deed to the property in question was executed to them, and it was the intention to convey them an estate by the entirety. A mistake was made in the description of the property which was corrected by a new deed executed to Joseph E. Parrish alone. It was represented to Emma Parrish that the new deed was to her husband and herself as in the first instance, and she did not know any difference until after the death of her husband. It is the contention of counsel for the defendants that our Married Women's Acts have abolished estate by the entirety, and several cases from the Supreme Courts of other States are cited in support of their contention.......

Counsel for the defendants urge us to overrule this case in this respect; but, as we have already seen, the holding is in accord with our previous decisions bearing on the question, and we adhere to it.