A joint tenant, tenant in common, or coparcener cannot make improvements on the property without the consent of his cotenant, and then compel the latter to contribute a part of the cost thereof.75 If, however, the cotenant agrees to pay part of the cost of the improvements, he is liable accordingly, and such an agreement may be inferred from conduct as well as express.76 In the latter case the cotenant making the improvements has occasionally been regarded as entitled to a lien on his cotenant's interest for the latter's share of the cost.77

In equity it has been held that a cotenant who makes improvements in good faith may be entitled, on a tenant making improvements is regarded in equity as entitled to the amount of the increase in the rent or profits due to such improvements, as against a claim by his eotenants for a part of the rent or profits.80

228 it is assumed that if a cotenant has the privilege of cutting timber, he may confer that privilege on another. And it is so decided in Buchanan v. Jencks, 38 R. I. 443, 96 Atl. 307.

74. See Murray v. Haverty, 70 111. 318; Zeigler v. Brenneman, 237 111. 15, 86 N. E. 597.

75. Ferris v. Montgomery Land & Imp. Co., 94 Ala. 557, 33 Am. St. Rep. 146, 10 So. 607; Stickley v. Mulrooney, 36 Colo. 242, 87 Pac. 547; Brown v. Cooper, 98 Iowa, 444, 33 L. R. A. 61, 60 Am. St. Rep. 190, 67 N. W. 378; Nelson's Heirs v. Clay's Heirs, 7 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 142, 23 Am. Dec. 387; Husband v. Aldrich. 135 Mass. 317; Walter v. Greenwood, 29 Minn. 87;; Stevens v. Thompson, 17 N. H. 103; Mumford v. Brown, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 476, 16 Am. Dec. 440; Cosgriff v. Foss, 152 N. Y. 104, 57 Am. St. Rep. 500; Crest v. Jack, 3 Watts

(Pa.) 238, 27 Am. Dec. 353; Thurston v. Dickinson, 2 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 317, 46 Am. Dec. 56; Du-plesse v. Haskell, 89 Vt. 166, 94 Atl. 503; Ward v. Ward's Heirs 40 W. Va. 611, 29 L. R. A. 449, 52 Am. St. Rep. 911, 21 S. E. 746; Henrikson v. Henrikson, 143 Wis. 314, 127 N. W. 962.

That he cannot assert such a claim as against a claim for rents and profits, see Geisendorff v. Cobbs, 47 Ind. App. 573, 94 N. E. 236.

76. Baird v. Jackson, 98 111. 78; Hogan v. McMahon, 115 Md 195, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1260, 80 Atl. 695; Prentice v. Janssen, 79 N. Y. 478; Kidder v. Rixford, 16 Vt. 169, 42 Am. Dec. 504; Reed v. Jones, 8 Wis. 421.

77. Baird v. Jackson, 98 111 78; Prentice v. Janssen, 79 N. Y. 478; See Story, Eq. Jur., Sec.Sec. 1234 1236, 1237.

78. Donnor v. Quartermas, 90 Ala. 164, 24 Am. St. Rep. 778, 8 So. 715;; Drennen's Adm'r v. Walker, 21 Ark. 539; Smith v. Smith, 133 Ga. 170, 65 S. E. 414; Louvalle v. Menard, 6 111. 39, 41 Am. Dec. 161; Nelson's Heirs v. Clay's Heirs, 7 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 138, 23 Am. Dec. 387; Crafts v. Crafts, 16 Gray (Mass.), 360; Hunt v. Meeker County Abstract & Loan Co., 135 Minn. 134, 160 N. W. 496; Warner v. Eaton, - N. H. -, 102 Atl. 535; Hall v. Pid-dock, 21 N. J. Eq. 311; Cosgriff v. Foss, 152 N. Y. 104, 36 L. R. A. 753, 57 Am. Rep. 500, 46 N. E. 307; Kelsey's Appeal, 113 Pa., 119, 57 Am. Rep. 444, 5 Atl. 447; Robinson v. McDonald, 11 Tex. 385, 62 Am. Dec. 480; Leake v. Hayes, 13 Wash. 213, 52 Am. St. Rep. 34, 43 Pac. 48; Hamlin v. Hamlin, 90 Wash. 467, 156 Pac. 393; Ward v. Ward's Heirs, 40 W. Va. 611, 29 L. R. A. 449, 52 Am. St. Rep. 911, 21 S. E. 746; Contra, Husband v. Aldrich, 135 Mass. 317.

79. Ferris v. Montgomery Land & Imp. Co., 94 Ala. 557, 33 Am. St. Rep. 146, 10 So. 607; Swift v. Swift, 121 Ark. 197, 180 S. W. 742; Helmken v. Meyer, 138 Ga.

457, 75 S. E. 586; Martindale v. Alexander, 26 Ind. 105, 89 Am. Dec. 458; Killmer v. Wuchner, 79 Iowa 722. 8 L. R. A. 289, 18 Am. St. Rep. 392, 45 N. W. 299; Fenton v. Miller, 116 Mich. 45, 72 Am. St. Rep. 502, 74 N. W. 384; Hunt v. Meeker County Abstract & Loan Co., 135 Minn. 134, 160 N. W. 496; Grogan v. Grogan (Mo.), 177 S. W. 649; Carson v. Broady, 56 Neb. 648, 71 Am. St. Rep. 691: Abbott v. Abbott, - N. H. -, 97 Atl. 976 (cotenant induced to improve); Hall v. Piddock, 21 N. J. Eq. 311; Keneaster v. Erb, 83 N. J. Eq. 625, 92 Atl. 377; Ford v. Knapp, 102 N. Y. 135, 55 Am. Rep. 782, 6 N. E. 283; Johnson v. Pelot. 24 S. C. 255, 58 Am. Rep. 253; Turner v. Poole, 102 S. C. 465,. 86 S. E. 956; Burns v. Parker (Tex.), 137 S. W. 705; Leake v. Hayes, 13 Wash. 213, 52 Am. St. Rep. 34, 43 Pac. 48: Ward v. Ward's Heirs, 40 W. Va. 6ll, 29 L. R. A. 449, 52 Am. St. Rep. 911. 21 S. E. 746, and nois; Stewart v. Ste wart, 90 Wis. 516, 48 Am. St. Rep. 949, 63 N. W. 886. But, that this will not be done unless special equities exist in favor of the co-tenant making the improvements, see Cosgriff v. Foss, 152 N. Y. 104.

Occasionally a cotenant making improvements in the belief that he was solo owner has been regarded as entitled to compensation therefor under the so called betterment acts.81

A tenant who requests his cotenant to assist him in making repairs necessary for the preservation of a building or other erection on the land,82 and, on the cotenant's refusal so to do, makes them himself, may, by the weight of authority in this country, demand contribution from the other of a proportionate part of the cost.83 In England and Massachusetts, however,

26 L. R. A. 753, 57 Am. St. Rep. 500, 46 N. E. 307; Nelson's Heirs v. Clay's Heirs, 7 T. J. Marshall (Ky.) 139, cited 11 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 690. Compare Lyons National Bank v. Shuler, 199 N. Y. 405, 92 N. E. 800, questioned 11 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 85.

80. Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec. 258; Hannah v. Carver, 121 Ind. 278, 23 N. E. 93; Van Ormer v. Har-ley, 102 Iowa 150, 71 N. W. 241: Nelson's Heirs v. Clay's Heirs, 7 J. J. Marsh (Ky.), 138, 23 Am. Dec. 387; Worthington v. Hiss, 70 Md. 172, 16 Atl. 534, 17 Atl. 1026; Ford v. Knapp, 102 N. Y. 135, 55 Am. Rep. 782, 6 N. E. 283; Annely v. De Saussure, 26 S. C 497, 4 Am. St. Rep. 725, 2 S. E. 490; Cain v. Cain, 53 S. C. 350, 69 Am. St. Rep. 863, 31 S. E. 278; Leake v. Hayes, 13 Wash. 213, 52 Am. St. Rep. 34, 43 Pac. 48; Early v. Friend, 16 Gratt. (Va.) 21, 78 Am. Dec. 649. See Wolfe v. Childs, 42 Colo. 121, 94 Pac. 292.