Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1900-02-01

proceeds. (Id.)
a sale in most instances would doubt
less be equally as I'M urious to the owners
as partition of the property, if not more
so, on account of the scarcity of bidders
and the smallness of the amount bid.
Partition being impracticable in most
cases, and affording no redress for dam
ages sustained by a co-tenant by reason
of being elected or excluded from the
common property, if ali accounting for
the rents and profits, received from third
parties by co-tenant who did the GUST
ing, is the only remedy left the ousted
co-tenant for such redress, then a tenant
in common, if he so elect, whether his
mOiety be great or small, may exclude
all of his co-tcnants to their great dam
age frc IN a mine, let the mine lie idle, or
only work it himself, and incur no liabil-
ity to his cO-tenants, for whether he let
the mine remain idle, or only worked it
himself, there would be no rents or prof
its to be received from third parties, and
thus he may appropriate the whole prof
it's however great. to his own use.
There is 20 rtlle of law which grants F.
tenant in common such rights or privil-
eyes against q co-tenant whom he GUSTS
The authorities are to the contrary
Gage VS.. Gage, 2S L. X. A s-9 Note
a.
If A. ,!isseize his co-tenant L. il is no
defense in an action against hin. 10 re-
cover rents and profits, that III fact he
has received or realized nothing from the
lands during the dispossesSiou, and l..
may recover what the rents and profits
are WORTH without regard TO the inquiry
as to whether A. in fact collected rents or
received profits
tScarS VS.. Scl'ow, 2> Iowa. 5ol.)
The said lessons, as tenants in common
with the defendant. might have lawfully
entered and worked SAID mine themsei-
YES if the lease had not been mad -"
There can be no doubt tha, one. as a
tenant in common. may authorize
another to do what he himself could do
with the common property"
(Alford VS.. Bradcen, New. 22s)
1t is denied by the answer that the de-
PENDANT refused to permit the plaintiff to
enter into the possession of SAID mining
claim and TO work the same; denied that
he excluded the plaintiff therefrom; de-
MED that he refused to give to plaintiff y
| statement of the expenses Of the devsl-
opment of said claim; denied that plain
tiff offered to pay defendant any amount
due frsm his said les>oIs, or either of them,
for their proportion Vt said expenses; de-
Lied that the value of the rents and pro-
fits Of said one-third interaS. was any
sum Of money whatever and denied that
plaintiff was damaged in any sum by
reason of defendants refusal to let
plaintiff into the possession Of said ono
third interest under said lease, or for ex-
Guiding him theretrom. But IN our opin-
port a finding of the jury in favor of the
plaintiff on each Of the above contro-
| verted points.
There was evidence t. the effect that
tho plaintiff repeatedly requested Of the
defendant TO be let into the possession %.
the mine; to work the same, aud that de
PENDANT refused every request; that dc
PENDANT threatened III. plaintiff with per
sonal Vloleaee if lac entered and mined
the ore; that he refused To permit the
plaintitf to work on ore then scce>sibls
in the drifts and on which no work was
being done by anyone; that the plaintiff
! requested that he be PERMITTED to sink Z
shaft from the surface to the bodies @
ore on their dip, belew, outside and away
from the level on which defendant wa.
working, and that he might extract tn,
ore therefrom, and that defendant re
fused to permit him to do so; that Their,
was no way OF reaching the ore bodie.
then developed, except through tunne
from the surface, and connecting incline
that the defendant locked the door tina
was at and in the mouth Of the tunnel
every night after the plaintiff got hi
lease, and that he threatened to seattle
the plaintiff = brains if he entered there
that the defendant applied to the plain
, till insulting language and opprobrieu
: epithets, aud that the plaintiff did not en-
| ter and work the mine for fear that on
, he did 20. The evidence was certainl
t sufficient to support finding Of the jur
of an custer of the plaintiff by defen
, dant.
There was evidence sufficient to SUI
. port a finding that the plaintiff offered t
pay the defendant tho lessons propol
r ton Of all expense incurred by the d'
9 PENDANT in any Developments Of the min
that he may have made. There was ev
q dence also tending to show that the d.
t PENDANT had been fully reimbursed fer a
}. such expenses BY the proceeds Of ore
a extracted by the defendant from sal
J. mine.
It 1t appears that all of tho work in d
d veloPing the mine in that part where tt
. defendant was working and from whic
r, the plaintiff was excluded a. aforesai
J. was done by lessees of the mine, and tn
: all the bodies of ore found there, We
l. found by such lesssos. 1t appears tn
d the first lease was given by Eugene Ho,
, eli for term commencing ON tho IA
IS day of January, 1894, and ending on tt
l. 18th day of January, 1895 (Record, fol
1t 1917; that the lessees worked elev'