Watts, (Pa.) 158, 36 Am. Dec. 158; Hubbard v. Wood, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 279; Church v. Waggoner, 78 Tex. 200, 14 S. W. 581.

46. Carpenter v. Webster, 27 Cal. 524; Norris v. Sullivan, 47 Conn. 474; Goodwin v. Bragaw, 87 Conn. 31, 86 Atl. 668; Hudson v. Coe, 79 Me. 83, 1 Am. St. Rep. 288, 8 Atl. 249; Jordan v. Surgh-nor, 107 Mo. 520, 17 S. W. 1009; Humbert v. Trinity Church, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 587; Forward v. Deetz, 32 Pa. St. 69; Jefcoat v. Knotts, 13 Rich. L. (S. C.) 50. Hubbard v. Wood's Lessee 1 Sneed

(Tenn.) 279.

47. Roumillot v. Gardner, 113 Ga. 60, 53 L. R. A. 729, 38 S. E. 365; Laraway v. Larue, 63 Iowa, 407, 19 S. W. 242; Bennett v. Clemence, 6 Allen (Mass.) 10; Capen v. Leach, 182 Mass. 175, 65 N. E. 63; Warfield v. Lindell, 38 Mo. 561, 90 Am. Dec. 443; Dunlap v. Griffith, 146 Mo. 283, 47 S. W. 917; Childs v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co. - (Mo.) - , 17 S. W. 954; Zapf v. Carter, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 395, 75 N. Y. Supp. 197; An-nely v. De Saussure, 26 S. C. 497, 40 Am. St. Rep. 725, 2 S. E. 490. Cox v. Tompkinson, 39 Wash. 70, 80 Pac. 1005; Cochran v.

Cochran, 55 W. Va. 178, 46 S. E. 924.

48. Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 213, 4 L. Ed. 553; Mcclung v. Ross, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 116, 5 L. Ed. 46; Packard v. Johnson, 57 Cal. 180; Unger v. Mooney, 63 Cal. 586, 49 Am. Rep. 100; Stokely v. Conner, 69 Fla. 412, 68 So. 452; Christopher v. Mungen, 71 Fla. 545, 71 So. 625; Grand Tower Min., Mfg. & Transp. Co. v. Gill, 111 111. 541; Stowell v. Lynch, 269 111. 437, 110 N. E. 51; Warfield v. Lindell, 30 Mo. 272, 77 Am. Dec. 614, 38 Mo. 581, 90 Am. Dec. 443. Hynds v. Hynds, 253 Mo. 20, 161 S. W. 812; Culver v. Rhodes, 87 N. Y. 348; Lodge v. Patterson, 3 Watts (Pa.) 74, 27 Am. Dec. 335; Saunders v. Terry. 116 Va. 495, 82 S. E. 68; Vermont Marble Co. v. Eastman. 91 Vt. 425, 101 Atl. 151.

That actual notice to the coten-ant not in possession is unnecessary, see Van Gunden v. Virginia Coal & Iron Co., 52 Fed. 838,3 C C. A. 294; Elder v. Mcciaskey, 70 Fed. 529, 17 C. C. A. 251; Kidd v. Borum, 181 Ala. 144, Ann.cas. 1915C 1226, 61 So. 100; Unger v. Mooney, 63 Cal. 586, 49 Am. Rep. 100; Oglesby v. Hollister, 76

The cotenant out of possession is not charged with notice that the possession of the other is adverse to him, so that the statute will run in favor of such other, by the mere fact that the other has taken from a third person a conveyance which purports to transfer the whole property.49 And, accepting the view which is usually approved, that the purpose of the recording acts is merely to afford protection to subsequent purchasers,50 the record of such a conveyance to one co-tenant is not sufficient to charge the other with notice of the former's adverse claim. But while there are at least two decisions to this effect,51 there are others which give to such record the effect of charging with

Cal. 136, 9 Am. St. Rep. 177, 18 Pac. 146; Roberts v. Cox, 259 111. 322, 102 N. E. 204; Knowles v. Brown, 69 Iowa, 11, 28 N. W. 409; Wilson v. Hoover, 154 Ky. 1, 156 S. W. 880; Greenhill v. Biggs, 85 Ky. 155, 7 Am. St. Rep. 579, 2 S. W. 774; Fuller v. Swensberg, 106 Mich. 305, 58 Am. St. Rep. 481, 64 N. W. 463; Peck v. Lockridge, 97 Mo. 549, 11 S. W. 246; Dunlap v. Griffith, 146 Mo. 283, 47 S. W. 917; Culver v. Rhodss, 87 N. Y. 348; Zapf v. Carter, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 395, 75 N. Y. Supp. 197; Lodge v. Patterson, 3 Watts (Pa.) 74, 27 Am. Dec. 335 Miller v. Cramer, 48 S. C. 282, 26 S. E. 657; Humphreys v. Edwards, 89 Tex. 512, 36 S. W. 333, 434; Mathews v. Baker, 47 Utah, 532, 155 Pac. 427; Baber v Baber, 121 Va. 740, 94 S. E. 209; Cox v. Tomokinson, 39 Wash. 70, 80 Pac. 1005; Clark v. Beard, 59 W. Va. 669, 53 S. E. 597; Roberts v. Decker, 120 Wis. 102 (semble). Compare Gracy v. Fielding, 71 Fla. 1, 70 So. 625; Kidd v.

Borum, 181 Ala. 144, Ann. Cas. 1915C 1226, 61 So. 100; Custer v. Hall, 71 W. Va. 119, 76 S. E. 183.

It has been decided in a recent case that if cotenants in possession have no knowledge of the fact that there are other cotenants, their possession is to be regarded as adverse to the latter apart from any question of notice, actual or constructive. Bourne v. Wiele, 159 Wis. 340, 150 N. W. 420.

49. Inerlis v. Webb, 117 Ala. 387, 23 So. 125; Donason v. Bar-bero, 230 111. 138, 82 N. E. 620. Craig v. Cox, 255 111. 564, 99 N. E. 647; Hignite v. Hignite, 65 Miss. 447, 4 So. 345; Culver v. Rhodes, 87 N. Y. 348; Barrett v. Mccarty, 20 S. D. 75, 104 N. W. 907; Holley v. Hawley, 39 Vt. 532, 94 Am. Dec. 350.

50. Post Sec. 567(a).

51. Cocks v. Simmons, 55 Ark. 104, 29 Am. St. Rep. 28, 17 S. W. 594: Holley v. Hawley, 39 Vt. 525.

Notice thereof the tenant out of possession.52 Under these latter decisions, a cotenant who refrains from taking possession is bound to inspect the records in order to ascertain whether the possession of the other has become adverse to him.

If a cotenant makes a conveyance which purports to convey not merely his undivided interest in the land, but the entire interest therein, or in a part thereof, and the grantee in the conveyance takes possession accordingly, without any recognition of the rights of the other cotenant, out of possession, the possession of the grantee is regarded as adverse to the latter, and the latter is charged with notice to this effect. He is charged with notice of the fact that a person other than his original cotenant is in possession of the land, and he is also charged with notice of the character of the claim of such person, and cannot assume that it is other than such as is indicated by the conveyance under which he holds.53 If, however, the it is recognized that the possession of the mortgagor is not adverse to the mortgagee unless he denies the latter's rights in an open and notorious manner,55 and the possession of the mortgagor's transferee is likewise not adverse to the mortgagee.

52. Ames v. Howes, 13 Idaho, 756, 93 Pac. 35; Puckett v. Mr-daniel, 8 Tex. Civ. ivpp. 630, 28 S. W. 360; Morgan v. White, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 318, 110 S. W. 491; Craven v. Craven, 68 Neb. 459, 94 N. W. 604; Mccann v. Welch, 106 Wis. 142. 81 N. W. 996.