214. The rights of tenants of joint estates will be treated under the following heads:

(a) Possession and disseisin (p. 340).

(b) Accounting between co-tenants (p. 341).

(c) Repairs and waste (p. 342).

(d) Transfer of joint estates (p. 343).

(e) Actions affecting joint estates (p. 343).

Possession and Disseisin.

The owners of joint estates have in general all the rights of owners in severalty except the right to sole possession.55 Therefore rhe possession of one tenant of a joint estate is not adverse to his co-tenants,56 but it may be made so by an actual disseisin of the other tenants, such as a known denial of their rights, or a long exclusive possession without accounting for the rents and profits.57

4 9 Falrchild v. Fail-child, 64 N. Y. 471; Dyer v. Clark, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 562; Paige v. Faige, 71 Iowa, 31S, 32 N. W. 360.

50 Williams v. Shelden, 61 Mich. 311, 28 N. W. 115; Fairchild v. Fairchild, 64 N. Y. 471.

51 Fepper v. Pepper, 24 111. App. 316; Dyer v. Clark, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 562; Howard v. Priest, Id. 582.

52 Arnold v. Wainwright, 6 Minn. 358 (Gil. 241). And see ante, p. 24.

53 Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 165; Galbraith v. Gedge, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 631.

54 Strong v. Lord, 107 111. 25; Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 165.

55 Wood v. Phillips, 43 N. Y. 152; Erwin v. Olmsted. 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 229; Gower v. Quinlan, 40 Mich. 572.

56 Clapp v. Bromagham, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 530; Challefoux v. Ducharme, 4 Wis. 554.

57 M'clung v. Ross, 5 Wheat. 116; Puckett v. Mcdaniel, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 630, 28 S. W. 360; Cameron v. Railway Co., 60 Minn. 100, 61 N. W. 814; Liscomb v. Root, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 376; Cummings v. Wyman, 10 Mass. 464;

So one co-tenant may disseise the others by conveying the whole of the estate to a stranger, if the conveyance is followed by possession by the grantee.58 One co-tenant cannot let the joint property be sold for taxes, and purchase it himself; if he does so, his title will not be good against his co-tenants.59 Nor can a co-tenant set up any other adverse title in himself or in another.60

Accounting between Co-tenants.

Trespass quare clausum does not lie against a co-tenant for taking the crops nor for cutting trees,61 though one tenant may recover his proportion if the whole has been sold by the other tenant.62 So one tenant cannot recover rent from his co-tenant when the latter has been occupying the joint premises,63 though the rule is otherwise in

Blackmore v. Gregg, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 182; Feliz v. Feliz, 105 Cal. 1, 38 Par. 521. There must be an actual ouster. Mansfield v. Mcginnis, S6 Me. 118, 29 Atl. 956.

58 Clapp v. Bromagham, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 530; Kinney v. Slattery, 51 Iowa. 353, 1 N. W. 626. But see Noble v. Hill, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 171, 27 S. W. 756; Caldwell v. Neely, 81 N. C. 114; Price v. Hall, 140 Ind. 314, 39 N. E. 941. Such a conveyance must be followed by possession, or there will be no ouster of the other tenants. New York & T. Land Co. v. Hyland, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 601, 28 S. W. 206. Such a purchaser from one co-tenant is not estopped to set up a title adverse to that of the joint owners. Watkins v. Green, 101 Mich. 493, 60 N. W. 44.

59 Dubois v. Campau, 24 Mich. 360; Page v. Webster, 8 Mich. 263; Conn v. Conn, 58 Iowa, 747, 13 N. W. 51; Clark v. Rainey, 72 Miss. 151, 16 South. 499. And see Bracken v. Cooper, 80 111. 221; Montague v. Selb, 106 111. 49.

60 Rothwell v. Dewees, 2 Black, 613; Van Home v. Fonda, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 3S8; Davis v. Givens, 71 Mo. 94. An adverse title purchased by one tenant inures to the benefit of the others only when they pay their proportion of the cost. Mcfarlin v. Leaman (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 44. When the co-tenants hold in remainder, the purchase of the preceding life estate by one tenant does not inure to the benefit of the others. Mclaughlin v. Mclaughlin, 80 Md. 115, 30 Atl. 607. Cf. Roberts v. Thorn, 25 Tex. 728; Kirkpatrick v. Mathiot, 4 Watts & S. (Fa.) 251. See, also, Palmer v. Young, 1 Vern. 276; Hamilton v. Denny, 1 Ball & B. 199.

61 Filbert v. Hoff, 42 Pa. St. 97.

62 Abbey v. Wheeler, 85 Hun, 226, 32 N. Y. Supp. 1069; Mcgahan v. Bank, 156 U. S. 218, 15 Sup. Ct. 347; Hayden v. Merrill. 44 Vt. 336; Richardson v. Richardson, 72 Mo. 403. But see Calhoun v. Curtis, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 413.

63 Mclaughlin v. Mclaughlin, So Md. 115, 30 Atl. 007; Sargent v. Parsons, 12 Mass. 149; Woolever v. Knupp, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 265; Valentine v. Healey, 82 Hun, 259, 33 N. Y. Supp. 246; Thomas v. Thomas, 5 Exch. 2S; Henderson some states by statute,64 and there may be such a recovery if the land has been leased, and the whole of the rent collected by one tenant.65 A co-tenant has no claim for improvements which he has made on the common property,66 though he may be given the benefit of them in a partition of the land.67

Repairs and Waste.

One co-tenant may make necessary repairs, and enforce contribution therefor against the other tenants.68 One tenant in possession of the joint property may become liable to his co-tenants for waste if he does acts which amount to a destruction of the property.69 The technical rules of waste, however, do not apply. There must be some actual injury to the estate, or the liability is not incurred.70 A tenant in possession may be restrained by injunction from malicious injury to the property.71 v. Eason, 17 Q. B. 701. One tenant may take a lease from his co-tenants. Valentine v. Healey, 86 Hun, 259, 33 N. Y. Supp. 246.

64 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 137S; 3 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 98. And see Mcparland v. Larkin, 155 I1l 84, 39 N. E. 609.

65 Minor v. Lorman, 70 Mich. 173, 38 N. W. 18; Reynolds v. Wilmeth, 45 Iowa, 693.

66 Rico Reduction & Mining Co. v. Musgrave, 14 Colo. 79, 23 Pac. 458; Scott v. Guernsey, 48 N. Y. 106.

67 Kurtz v. Hibner, 55 111. 514; Alleman v. Hawley, 117 Ind. 532, 20 N. E. 441.

68 Stewart v. Stewart (Wis.) 63 N. W. 886; Leigh v. Dickeson, 12 Q. B. Div. 194; Ward v. Ward's Heirs (W. Va.) 21 S. E. 746; Pickering v. Pickering, 63 N. H. 468, 3 Atl. 744; Dech's Appeal, 57 Pa, St: 467; Beaty v. Bordwell, 91 Pa. St 438; Alexander v. Ellison, 79 Ky. 148; Fowler v. Fowler, 50 Conn. 256; Haven v. Mehlgarten, 19 111. 91. But see Calvert v. Aldrich, 99 Mass. 74. But there is no lien on the land to secure such expenditures. Branch v. Makeig (Tex. Civ. App.) 28 S. W. 1050. But see, as to improvements by a co-parcener, Ward v. Ward's Heirs (W. Va.) 21 S. E. 746. Co-tenants must contribute for expenses incurred in defending the common title. Gosselin v. Smith, 154 111. 74, 39 N. E. 980.

69 Dodge v. Davis, 85 Iowa, 77, 52 N. W. 2; Childs v. Railroad Co., 117 Mo. 414, 23 S. W. 373; Wilkinson v. Haygarth, 12 Q. B. 837. But see Walt v. Richardson, 33 Vt. 190. The amount of recovery is apportioned according to the interests of the several owners. Mcdodrill v. Lumber Co. (W. Va.) 21 8. E. 878.

70 Martyn v. Knowllys, 8 Term R. 145.

71 Ballou v. Wood, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 48. But see Hihn v. Peck, 18 Cal. 640; Obert v. Obert, 5 N. J. Eq. 397.