99. Caldwell V. Caldwell, 173 Ala. 216, 55 So. 515; Smith v. Osborne, 86 111. 606; Darcey v. Bayne, 105 Md. 365, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 863, 66 Atl. 434; Beaman v. Beaman, 90 Miss. 762. 44 So. 987; Knolls v. Barnhart, 71 N. Y. 474; Carpenter v. Carpenter; 131 N. Y. 101, 27 Am. St. Rep. 569; Tisdale v. Tisdale, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 596, 64 Am. Dec. 775.

1. Gibson v. Winslow, 46 Pa St. 380, 84 Am. Dec. 552.

A redemption by one cotenant from a foreclosure sale of the property has been regarded as within the scope of the rule referred to,3 as has a purchase by him of the property within the redemption period.4

The doctrine has been applied in the case of a sale for taxes to the cotenant,5 though more frequently, perhaps, the inability of a cotenant to purchase at a tax sale for his own benefit is based upon the theory, not that confidential relations exist between the tenants, but that, since the cotenant is under an obligation to pay the taxes, the purchase operates merely as a payment.6 A redemption by the cotenant from a tax sale or a purchase of a tax title by him within the redemption

2. Starkweather v. Jenner, 216 U. S. 524, 54 L. Ed. 602.

That it does not apply to a judicial sale, see Westergreen v. Beer, 25 Cal. App. 775, 145 Pac. 543; Plant v. Plant, 171 Cal. 765, 154 Pac 1058; Davis v. Solari, 132 Tenn. 225, 177 S. W. 939. And that it does not apply to a purchase at foreclosure sale by one of several joint heirs, is decided in Jackson v. Baird, 148 N. C. 29, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 591, 61 S. E. 632; Traxler v. Gant, 173 N. C. 422, 92 S. E. 152. That it does apply to a public sale, see authorities cited in 24 Yale Law Journ. 321.

3. Savage v. Bradley, 149 Ala. 169, 123 Am. St. Rep. 30, 43 So. 20; Dickerson v. Weeks, 106 Miss. 804 64 So. 711.

4. Eckert v. Schmitt, 60 Wash. 23, 110 Par. 635; Smith v. Osborne, 86 111. 606.

5. Getalski v. Kostuski, 179 111. 177, 70 Am. St. Rep. 98; Thompson v. McCorkle, 136 Ind. 484, 43 Am. St. Rep. 334; Weare v. Van Meter, 42 Iowa, 128, 20 Am. Rep. 616; Patty v. Payne, 178 Iowa 593, 159 N. W. 1012; Mc-Grath v. Smith, 175 Ky. 572, 194 S. W. 806; Hoyt v. Lightbody, 98 Minn. 189, 108 N. W. 843, 116 Am. St. Rep. 358; Cohea v. Hemingway, 71 Miss. 22, 42 Am. St. Rep. 449; Tanney v. Tanney, 159 Pa. St. 277, 39 Am. St. Rep. 678: Johnson v. Branch, 9 S. D. 116, 62 Am. St. Rep. 857; Downer's Adm'rs v. Smith, 38 Vt. 464; Allen v. Allen, 114 Wis. 615, 91 N. W. 218. In Hobe v. Rudd, 165 Wis. 152, 161 N. W. 551, it is said that one cotenant may acquire title by tax deed provided the cotenants claim under sep-erate instruments and the land is unoccupied.

6. Inman v. Quirey ,(Ark.) 164 S. W. 858; Williams v. Clyatt, 53 Fla. 987, 43 So. 441; Delash-mutt v. Parrent, 39 Kan. 548, 18 period also enures to the benefit of all the cotenants,7 though the cotenant so redeeming or purchasing is entitled to contribution from the others, and has a lien securing this right.8

Since the doctrine applies only to the case of the acquisition of an adverse title, it does not apply when one cotenant purchases a title not adverse, as in the case of a purchase of the reversion by one colessee,9 or a purchase by one cotenant of the interest of the other at execution 10 or judicial11 sale. And a cotenant at liberty, it seems, to purchase on his own behalf at a sale for taxes assessed merely on the other co-tenant's interest in the property.12

Pac. 712; Hurley v. Hurley, 148 Mass. 444, 2 L. R. A. 172, 19 N. E. 545; Dubois v. Campau, 24 Mich. 360; Smith v. Smith, 150 N. C. 81, 63 S. E. 177; McCready v. Fredericksen, 41 Utah 388, 126 Pac. 316; Downer's Adm'rs v. Smith, 38 Vt. 464; Stone v. Marshall, 52 Wash. 375, 100 Pac. 858.

7. Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec. 158; Russell v. Bell, 160 Ala. 480, 49 So. 314; Donnor v. Quartermas, 190 Ala. 164, 24 Am. St. Rep. 778; Inman v. Quirey (Ark.) 194 S. W. 858; Conn v. Conn, 58 Iowa 747, 13 N. W. 51; Page v. Webster, 8 Mich. 263; Easton v. Scofield, 66 Minn. 425, 69 N. W. 326; Kohle v. Hobson, 215 Mo. 213, 114 S. W. 952; Roll v. Everitt, 73 N. J. Eq. 697, 17 Ann. Cas. 1196, 71 Atl. 263; Minter v. Durham, 13 Ore. 470, 11 Pac. 231; Maul v. Rider, 51 Pa. St. 377; Stone v. Marshall, 52 Wash. 375, 100 Pac 858; Battin v. Woods, 27 W. Va. 58; Abbott v. Williams, 74 W. Va. 652, 82 S. E. 1097.

8. Watkins v. Eaton, 30 Me.

529, 50 Am. Dec. 637; Hurley v. Hurley, 148 Mass. 444, 2 L. R. A. 172, 19 N. E. 545; Wilmot v. Lath-rop, 67 Vt. 671, 32 Atl. 861; Stone v. Marshall, 52 Wash. 375, 100 Pac. 858. See ante Sec. 198, note 87.

9. Ramberg v. Wahlstrom, 140 111. 182, 33 Am. St. Rep. 227, 29 N. E. 727; Kershaw v. Simpson, 46 Wash. 313, 89 Pac. 889.

10. Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec. 165; Brittin v. Handy, 20 Ark. 381, 73 Am. Dec. 497; Gunter v. Laffan, 7 Cal. 588; Elston v. Piggott, 94 Ind. 14; Burr v. Mueller. 65 111. 258.

11. McNutt v. Nuevo Land Co. 167 Cal. 459, 140 Pac. 6; Wester-green v. Beer, 25 Cal. App. 775, 145 Pac. 543; Peck v. Lockridge, 97 Mo. 549, 11 S. W. 246.

12. Bennett v. North Colorado etc. Improvement Co., 23 Colo. 470, 58 Am. St. Rep. 281, 48 Pac. 812; Butler v. Porter, 13 Mich. 292; McCready v. Fredericksen, 41 Utah 388, 126 Pac. 316; Hanley v. Federal Mining & Smelting Co., 235 Fed. 769.

The doctrine has been applied, or rather extended, to the case of an adverse title purchased by the husband of a cotenant,13 as well as to one purchased by the wife of a cotenant.14 The doctrine that an adverse title acquired by one cotenant enures to the benefit of the other in case he contributes to the cost of its acquisition applies only to an acquisition which takes place during the existence of the cotenancy. Consequently it does not apply if they have previously been evicted by a stranger;15 and if the land has been sold for taxes, and the time of redemption has expired, the relation is regarded as having ceased, and one who was a cotenant may purchase the tax title for himself without any obligation to share with the others.16 So the doctrine does not apply as against a former cotenant who acquires the paramount title from one to whom he has previously conveyed his interest as cotenant,17 or from one to whom the property has been transferred by order of court.18 The doctrine does however apply if the nominal purchaser of the property, from whom he in turn purchases it, was acting merely as his agent.19

13. Rothwell v. Dewees, 2 Black (U. S.) 613, 17 L. Ed. 309; Robinson v. Lewis, 68 Miss. 69, 24 Am. St. Rep. 254; Peabody v. Burri, 255 111. 592, 99 N. E. 690; Abbott v. Williams, 74 W. Va. 652, 82 S. E. 1097. See Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec. 160.

14. Beaman v. Beaman, 90 Miss. 762, 44 So. 987.

15. Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec.Sec. 161, 162; Coleman v. Coleman, 3 Dana (Ky.) 398, 28 Am. Dec. 86; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 131 N. Y. 101, 27 Am. St. Rep. 569; Alexander v. Sully, 50 Iowa, 192.

16. Watkins v. Eaton, 30 Me. 529, 50 Am. Dec. 637; Kirkpatrirk v. Mathiot, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 251; Reinboth v. Zerbe Run Imp. Co., 29 Pa. St. 139; Keele v. Cunningham, 2 Heisk. (Tenn.) 288. Compare Battin v. Woods, 27 W. Va. 58.

17. Jonas v. Flenniken, 69 Miss. 577, 13 So. 858; Sweetland v. Buell, 164 N. Y. 541, 79 Am. St. Rep. 676, 58 N. E. 663.

18. Wells v. Chapman, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 312; In re Reynolds, 239 Pa. 314, 86 Atl. 858; MeLaw-horn v. Harris, 156 N. Car. 107, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 831, 72 S. E. 211 (foreclosure sale).

19. Tanney v. Tanney, 159 Pa. 277, 39 Am. St. Rep. 678; Cohen authorities, however, he can recover only his undivided share in the property.28 must also sue together when the title to the land is involved.22

The cotenants entitled to the benefit of the rule must, within a reasonable time, having due regard to their knowledge or means of knowledge of the purchase, contribute or offer to contribute their proportion of the price paid, and a failure so to do will be regarded as a repudiation of the transaction and abandonment of its benefits, and likewise, until this is done, they cannot demand a partition.20