The only evidence of partnership was the testimony of two daughters of the decedеnt. Their evidence consists entirely of remarks made by the defendant and the decedent to them at different times regarding the relationship between decedent and defendant. The defendant positively denies that a partnership in the technical sense existed between them, and he is corroborated by one disinterested witness, a Mrs. Horr. The'testimony in bеhalf of the plaintiff referred to is to the effect that the defendant had stated at diffеrent times that he and decedent were partners and that the decedent had stated that they were equally interested, sharing alike in the consideration paid for the Clark Cоunty farm which was exchanged for the Sellwood property owned by the two at the time of the death of Mrs. Durkee. We are persuaded that no partnership in the technicаl sense existed between Mr. and Mrs. Durkee. Conceding that the defendant at times expressed the sentiments attributed to him by the witnesses for plaintiff, such expressions are not sufficient to сonstitute a partnership in a technical sense between Mr. and Mrs. Durkee. It is not an uncommon thing for one spouse to *90 refer to the other as a partner. The conduct of the parties in this case does not indicate that they were conducting’ a partnership business other than as husband and wife. The testimony of the defendant is positive that they bought the farm in Clark County for a home. The conduct of the parties corroborates his testimоny. They seem not to have conducted themselves towards their property in a differеnt manner than husband and wife who are fond of each other and living happily together оrdinarily transact their affairs. There is no testimony at all of any difference arising betweеn them over property matters.
Under the law of this state the deed conveying the Sellwood property to Mr. and Mrs. Durkee as husband and wife constituted them tenants by the entirety:
Ganoe
v.
Ohmart, post,
p. 116 (
The conveyance in the instant casе is an ordinary deed. There is nothing in the deed that indicates the grantees intended anything cоntrary to the legal effect thereof. The evidence introduced by both parties preponderates in favor of the defendant regarding the intention of the parties. The attorney *91 who prepared the will for the decedent testified that he informed her before she executed her will that under the deed by which she and her husband held the Sellwood tract they were tenants by the entirety, and that if he survived her he would be the sole owner of the property. There is no evidence that the decedent ever desired any other disposition of the Sellwood property. She lived for some time after executing hеr will. The defendant testified without contradic-tion that he did not know anything about the estate by thе entirety, and that he and his wife had agreed to execute wills in favor of each other. He executed such a will and it was destroyed after the death of his' wife. It is only fair to presume that his wife would have made such a will but for .the information given to her by her attorney while she had under considration preparation of a will and before she had executed it.
Defendant concedes that the plaintiff is entitled to an interest in the personal property. Personal property is not held by the entirety in this state:
Stout
v.
Van Zante,
Affirmed.