(after stating the facts). The right of sur-vivorship where the real property is held by the entirety has not been destroyed by our statute (Crawford & Moses ’ Digest, § 6232), and it has also been held that the character of such estate by the entirety is not changed by a divorce of the parties. Raulston v. Hall, 66 Ark. 305, 50 S. W. 690; 74 Am. St. Rep. 97; Davies v. Johnson, 124 Ark. 390, 187 S. W. 323; Woodall v. Woodall, 144 Ark. 159, 221 S. W. 463; and Heinrich v. Heinrich, 177 Ark. 250, 6 S. W. (2d) 21.
*198It is doubtless true, as appellant insists, that this holding is the minority rule, a great majority of the cases holding that the effect of a divorce of the parties is to sever an estate by the entirety and render the parties tenants in common, bnt onr holding has been consistently that a divorce has no such effect, our last case being Heinrich v. Heinrich, supra. As the court could have granted no greater relief, we do not consider it necessary to change our ruling here.
This being true, we do not find it necessary, in view of this holding, there being no cross-appeal, to determine what effect should have been given to the alleged agreement of a division of the property claimed to have been made by appellant and denied by appellee, since both admit that there was no separation of the parties in contemplation at the time of its being made, if it was made.
We find no error in the record, and the decree is accordingly affirmed.
Mehaffy, J., concurs.