At common law a coparcener could compel a partition by means of a writ of partition, but a tenant in common or a joint tenant did not have this right except in the single case of a tenancy in common resulting from the conveyance by

60. Morris v. Harris, 9 Gill. (Md.) 19; Huntley v. Cline, 93 N. C. 458; Patterson v. Lanning, 10 Watts (Pa.) 135, 36 Am. Dec. 154; Feather v. Strohecker, 3 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 505, 24 Am. Dec. 342. Contra, Davidson v. Coon, 125 Ind. 497, 9 L. R. A. 584, 25 N. E. 601 (dictum); Beardsley v. Knight, 10 Vt. 185, 33 Am. Dec. 193 (semble). In Kentucky such a warranty is implied in favor of a cotenant by force of a local statute, but not in favor of an alienee of a cotenant. Jones v. Bigstaff, 95 Ky. 395, 44 Am. St. Rep. 245, 25

S. W. 889

61. Rogers v. Turley, 4 Bibb (Ky.) 356; Morris v. Harris, 9 Gill (Md.) 27; James v. Adams, 64 Tex. 193.

62. Brown v. Tushoff, 235 Mo. 449, 138 S. W. 497, Sawyers, v Cator, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 256, 47 Am. Dec. 608; Weiser v. Weiser, 5 Watts (Pa.) 280, 30 Am. Dec. 313; Rountree v. Denson, 59 Wis. 522, 18 N. W. 518 (dictum); Beardsley v. Knight, 10 Vt. 185, 33 Am. Dec. 193.

63. Picot v. Page, 26 Mo. 398; James v. Adams, 64 Tex. 196.

Real Property.

[Sec. 204 a parcener of his interest to a third person, the coparcener who had not transferred his interest having the same right in this regard as before the transfer.64 The right to a writ of partition was, however, extended to joint tenants and tenants in common by English statutes, the first of which was passed about the middle of the sixteenth century.65 In the time of Elizabeth, if not earlier, the court of chancery began to take jurisdiction of suits for partition,66 and by an English statute passed in 1833 a bill in equity was made the only form of proceeding.67 In this country, the jurisdiction of courts of equity has always been recognized, but in many of the states there are statutory provisions giving concurrent jurisdiction to common-law courts, or to the courts having probate jurisdiction, particularly in the case of partition of land belonging to a decedent's estate.68

It has been quite frequently declared by the courts that partition is a matter of right,69 a declaration which has been perhaps usually coupled with the statement that it is no reason for refusing such relief that it is and the consequent end of that peculiar form of tenancy, partition may usually be obtained.77

64. Litt. Sec.Sec. 247, 290, 318; All-natt, Partition, 55.

65. Litt. Sec.Sec. 247, 290, 318; Co. Litt, 169a, 187a; 2 Blackst. Comm 185, 189, 194.

66. Co. Litt. 169a, Hargrave's note, 23; 2 Cruise, Dig. tit. 18, c. 2. Sec. 42 et seq.; 1 Spence, Equitable Jurisdiction, 651; Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec. 423.

67. St. 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 27, Sec. 36.

68. Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec. 428; 2 Dembitz, Land Titles, 1168, Sec. 155; 3 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1378 et seq. For a summary of the statutes, see Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec. 461a, note; 2 Dembitz, Land Titles, 1170, Sec. 155.

69. Willard v. Willard, 145 U. S. 116, 36 L. Ed. 644; Cates v. Johnson, 109 Ala. 126, 19 So. 416; Bradley v. Harkness, 26 Cal. 77; Scovil v. Kennedy, 14 Conn. 349; Hill v. Reno, 112 111. 154, 54 Am. Rep. 222; Blakeslee v. Blakeslee, 265 111. 48, 106 N. E. 470; Land v. Smith, 44 La. Ann. 931, 11 So. 577; Nash v. Simpson, 78 Me. 142, 3 Atl. 53; Brendel v. Klopp, 69 Md. 1, 13 Atl. 589; Tolson v. Bryan, 130 Md. 338, 100 Atl. 366: Oliver v. Lansing, 50 Neb. 828, 70 N. W. 369; Smith v. Smith, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 470; Holmes v. Holmes, 2 Jones Eq. (N. C.) 334; Williamson Inv. Co. v. Williamson, 96 Wash. 529, 165 Pac. 385; impossible to divide the property without injury accruing to one or more of the cotenants.70 to be taken with some qualification. It is subject to The statement that partition is a matter of right is the power of the court, under the modern statutes, to decree a sale instead of a partition in kind,70a and it appears that the right is not so absolute that a cotenant cannot preclude himself, by agreement with his cotenants, from asserting the right.71 Such an agreement has occasionally been said to be operative on the principle of estoppel,72-73 but some of the elements of an

Wisely v. Findley, 3 Rand. (Va.) 361, 15 Am. Dec. 712.

In Arms v. Lyman, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 210, the statute was regarded as making it a matter of the court's discretion. In Danvers v. Dorrity, 14 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 206, the court said that the right, of partition is not absolute, but there the cotenants were partners.

That the fact that the land Is subject to an easement is not a reason for refusing partition, see Crocker v. Cotting, 170 Mass. 68, 39 L. R. A. 215, 64 Am. St. Rep. 278, 48 N. E. 1023; Thompson v. De Snyder, 14 N. M. 403, 94 Pac. 1014.

70. Turner v. Morgan, 8 Ves. Jr., 143; Baring v. Nash, 1 Ves. & B. 555; Gore v. Dickenson, 98 Ala. 363, 39 Am. St. Rep. 67, 11 So. 743; Scovil v. Kennedy, 14 Conn. 349; Cooper v. Cedar Rapids Water Co., 42 Iowa, 398; Hanson v. Willard, 12 Me. 142, 28 Am. Dec; Brendel v. Klopp, 69 Md. 1, 13 Atl. 589; Oliver v. Lansing, 50 Neb. 828, 70 N. W. 369; Allard v. Carleton, 64 N. H. 24, 3 Atl. 313; Smith v. Smith, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 473; Led-better v. Gash, 8 Ired. L. (N. Car.) 462; Caldwell v. .Snyder, 178 Pa.

420, 35 L. R. A. 198, 35 Atl. 996; Updike v. Adams, 22 R. I. 432, 48 Atl. 384; Steedman v. Weeks, 2 Strobh. Eq. (S. C.) 145, 49 Am. Dec. 660.

But that when an infant applies for partition, it will be refused if it appears not to be for his benefit, see Ames v. Ames, 148 111. 321, 36 N. E. 110; Miller v. Lanning, 211 111. 620, 71 N. E. 1115.

70a. Post, this section, note 14.

71. Martin v. Martin, 170 111. 639, 62 Am. St. Rep. 411, 48 N. E. 694; Avery v. Payne, 12 Mich. 540; Eberts v. Fisher, 54 Mich. 294, 20 N. W. 80; Roberts v. Wallace, 100 Minn. 359, 111 N. W. 289, 117 Am. St. Rep. 701; Yglesias v. Dewey, 60 N. J. Eq. 62, 47 Atl. 59. Mclnteer v. Gillespie, 31 Okla. 644, 122 Pac. 184; Coleman v. Coleman, 19 Pa. 100, 57 Am. Dec. 641; Brown v. Coddington, 72 Hun (N. Y.) 147, 25 N. Y. Supp. 649; Buschman v. McDermott, 154 App. Div. 515, 139 N. Y. Supp. 314; Peck v. Cardwell, 2 Beav. 137; Springer v. Bradley, (Mo.) 188 S W. 175.