The exclusion of one tenant by his cotenants from the possession or enjoyment of the land is known as an "ouster." Questions as to what constitutes an ouster are important for the determination of the right of one tenant in common, joint tenant, or coparcener to maintain certain classes of remedies against the other, as in the case of ejectment, which lies at the suit of one such cotenant against the other only when he has been ousted,13 and also beHall, 208 Pa. 342, 57 Atl. 1134; Gunnison v. Erie Dime Savings & Loan Co., 157 Pa. 303, 27 Atl. 747.

8. Riddle v. Whitehill, 135 U. S. 621, 34 L. Ed. 283; Hewitt v. Rankin, 41 Iowa, 35; Shearer v. Shearer, 98 Mass. 107; Traphagen v. Burt, 67 N. Y. 30; Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 199, 47 Am. Dec. 305; Kruschke v. Stefan, 83 Wis. 373, 53 N. W. 679.

9. Brewer v. Brewer, 68 Ala. 210; Comstock v. McDonald, 126 Mich. 142, 85 N. W. 579; Craighead v. Pike, 58 N. J. Eq. 15, 43 Atl. 424; Smith v. Cowles, 81 (N. Y.) App. Div. 328, 81 N. Y. Supp. 524; Greene v. Graham, 5

Ohio, 264; Wilson v. Wilson, 74 S. C. 30, 54 S. E. 227.

10. Ante, this section, note 86.

11. Ante, this section, note 95.

12. Divine v. Mitchum, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 40 (mortgage); Taylor v. McLoughlin, 120 Ga. 703, 48

S. E. 203 (mortgage); Beecher v. Stevens, 43 Conn. 587; Alabama Marble Co. v. Cbattanoga Marble Co., (Tenn. Ch.) 37 S. W. 1004; Jones v. Way, 78 Kan. 535, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1180, 97 Pac. 437.

13. Adams, Ejectment, 92; Clay v. Field, 115 U. S. 260, 29 L. Ed. 375; Abercrombie v. Baldwin, 15 Ala. 363; Farr v. Perkins, 173 Ala. 500, 55 So. 923; La Cotts v. Pike, tit. 18, c. 1, Sec. 63; 4 Kent, Comm. 370; McClung v. Ross, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 116, 5 L. Ed. 582; Johnson v. Toulmin, 18 Ala. 50; Unger v. Mooney, 63 Cal. 586, 49 Am. Rep. 100; Stevens v. Wait, 112 111. 544; King v. Carmichael, 136 Ind. 20, 43 Am. St. Rep. 303, 35 N. E. 509; Young v. Adams, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 102; Wass v. Bucknam, 38 Me. 356; Barnard v. Pope, 14 Mass. 434, 7 Am. Dec. 225; Warfield v. Lindell, 30 Mo. 272, 77 Am. Dec. 614; Tulloch v. Worrall, 49 Pa. 133.

Real Property.

[Sec. 197 cause the possession of one of them is not adverse to the other, so as to deprive the latter of the right to assert his title by the lapse of time, unless there has been an ouster of such other.14

In the case of cotenants, since each is entitled to the possession, the mere fact that one is in possession and the other is not in possession does not presumptively show an ouster.15 Nor is it shown by the mere appropriation by one cotenant of all the ents and profits,16 though such appropriation may have that effect if accompanied by a notorious claim to the exclusive ownership.17

91 Ark. 26, 134 Am. St. Rep. 48; 120 S. W. 144; Whigby v. Burn-ham, 135 Ga. 584, 69 S. E. 1114; Small v. Clifford, 38 Me. 213; Higbee v. Rice, 5 Mass. 344, 4 Am. Dec. 63; Harmon v. James, 7 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 1ll, 45 Am. Dec. 296; Thomas v. Garvan, 15 N. C. 223, 25 Am. Dec. 708; Allen v. Long, 80 Tex. 261, 26 Am. St. Rep. 735, 16 S. W. 43; Carpenter v. Thayer, 15 Vt. 552; Taylor v. Hill, 10 Leigh (Va.) 457.

14. McClung v. Ross, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 116, 5 L. Ed. 582; Blake-ney v. Ferguson, 20 Ark. 547; Unger v. Mooney, 63 Cal. 586, 49 Am. Rep. 100; Stevens v. Wait, 112 111. 544; Killmer v. Wuchner, 74 Iowa, 359, 37 N. W. 778; Ingalls v. Newhall, 139 Mass. 268, 130 N. E. 96; Van Bibber v. Ferdinand, 17 Md. 436; Warfield v. Lindell, 30 Mo. 272, 77 Am. Dec. 614; Millard v. McMullin, 68 N. Y. 352; Susquehanna & W. V. Railroad & Coal Co. v. Quick, 61 Pa. St. 328; Sheffield v. Grieg, 105 S. C. 219, 89 S. E. 664. 15. Co. Litt. 19.9b 2 Cruise, Dig.

16. Johnson v. Toulmin, 18 Ala. 50; Higbee v. Rice, 5 Mass. 344, 4 Am. Dec. 63; Robidoux v. Cas-silegi, 10 Mo. App. 516; Hart v. Gregg, 10 Watts (Pa.) 185, 36 Am. Dec. 166; Workman v. Guthrie, 29 Pa. St. 495, 72 Am. Dec. 654; Susquehanna & W. V. Railroad & Coal Co. v. Quick, 61 Pa. St. 328.

17. Owen v. Morton, 24 Cal. 373; Johnson v. Toulmin, 18 Ala. 50; Butler v. Butler, - Ind. App. -, 114 N. E. 760; Parker v. Proprietors of Locks & Canals on Merrimac River, 3 Mete. (Mass.)

Sec. 197 ]

Co-Ownership.

The refusal to let a cotenant into possession, with knowledge of his claim of title, accompanied by a denial thereof, constitutes an ouster;18 but it does not result from the making by the other cotenant of a conveyance in terms of the entire interest in the property,19 though it will usually be presumed if the grantee thereunder holds possession without any recognition of the rights of the other cotenant.20

Owing to the unity of possession existing in the cases of concurrent ownership, each cotenant has the right to be in possession of any and every part of the land at any time. Consequently, one cotenant cannot ordinarily assert a right to the exclusive possession of any part, though it be smaller in extent than his proportionate share of the whole, and, if he exclude his cotenant from such part, he is guilty of an ouster.21 One cotenant may, however, have a right to the exclusive possession by force of a lease from the other or others.22

102, 37 Am. Dee. 121; Small v. Clifford, 38 Me. 213; Lapeyre v. Paul, 47 Mo. 586.

18. Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec. 235; Carpentier v. Mendenhall, 28 Cal. 484, 87 Am. Dec. 135; Newell v. Woodruff, 30 Conn. 492; Siglar v. Van Riper, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 414; Hubbard v. Wood's Lessee, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 279.

19. Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec.226; Hannon v. Hannah, 9 Grat. (Va.) 146; Roberts v. Morgan, 30 Vt. 319. But that it does result from the making of a warranty deed, see Clarke v. Dirks, 178 Iowa, 335, 160 N. W. 31.

20. Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec. 224; Prescott v. Nevers, 4 Mason, 330, Fed. Cas. No. 11, 390; Doe d. Horne v. Roe, 46 Ga. 9; King v. Carmichael, 136 Ind. 20; O'Dell v. Browning, - Iowa -, 165 N.

W. 395; Merryman v. Cumberland Paper Co., 98 Ind. 223; Parker v. Proprietors of Locks & Canals on Merrimack River, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 91, 37 Am. Dee. 121; Ken easter v. Erb, 83 N. J. Eq. 625, 95 Atl. 377; Jackson v. Smith, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 411.

21. Freeman Cotenancy, Sec.Sec.228, 248. The erection by one cotenant of a permanent structure upon the land has been regarded as involving an ouster. Muskget Island Club v. Prior, 228 Mass. 95, 117 N. E. 2. Susquehanna Transmission Co. v. St. Clair, 113 Md. 667, 140 Am. St. Rep. 452, 77 Atl. 1119.

22. Cowper v. Fletcher, 6 Best & Smith, 470; Long v. Grant, 163 Ala. 507, 136 Am. St. Rep. 86, 50 So. 914; Boley v. Barutio, 120 111. 192, 11 N. E. 393; Schmidt v. Constans, 82 Minn. 347, 83 Am. St.

R. P.-43

The question of ouster is one for the jury in each particular case, under the instructions of the court.23