Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-199-Contracts-and-conveyances-by-cotenant.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:52:57+00:00

Document:
(54 Mass.) 404, 46 Am. Dec. 739, and Gowen v. Shaw, 40 Me. 56, it is said that an express promise is necessary to create such a liability on the part of a cotenant. This would seem however to be questionable, provided the relation of landlord and tenant clearly appears. What these decisions really mean is perhaps that such a relation between cotenants will not be inferred from the mere fact of the exclusive occupation of the premises by one of them.
40a. Fuller v. Fuller, 23 Fla. 236, 2 So. 426; Harry v. Harry, 127 Ind. 91, 26 N. E. 562; Gay v. Berkey, 137 Mich. 658, 100 N. W. 920; Ranstead v. Ranstead, 74 Md. 378, 22 Atl. 405; Franklin v. Robinson, 1 Johns. Ch. 157; Redfield v.
Gleason, 61 Vt. 220, 15 Am. St. Rep. 889.
41. Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec.Sec. 168 173, 182; Pearis v. Covillaud, 6 Cal. 617, 65 Am. Dec. 543; Omaha & Grant Smelting & Refining Co. v. Tabor, 13 Colo. 41, 16 Am. St. Rep. 185; Clark v. Parker, 106 Mass. 535; Morrison v. Clark, 89 Me. 103, 56 Am. St. Rep. 395; City of St. Louis v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 96 Mo. 197, 9 Am. St. Rep. 334; State v. Klein (N. J.) 27 Atl. 902; Crippen v. Morse, 49 N. Y. 67; Dexter Lime Rock Co. v. Dexter, 6 R. I. 353; Hanks v. Enloe, 33 Tex. 624.
42. Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec.Sec. 174-178; Rud v. Tucker, Cro. Eliz. 802; Crary v. Campbell, 24 Cal. 637; Loomis v. Pingree, 43 Me. 299.
43. Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec. 174.
21 Am. St. Rep. 470; Cressey v. Cressey, 215 Mass. 65, 102 N. E. 314; Whitton v. Whitton, 38 N. H. 127, 75 Am. Dec. 163; Boston Franklinite Co. v. Condit, 19 N. J. Eq. 394; Green v. Arnold, 11 R. I. 364; Smith v. Benson, 9 Vt. 138, 31 Am. Dec. 614.
45. Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec. 205; coleman v. Stewart, 170 Ala. 255, 53 So. 1020; Gates v. Salmon, 35 Cal. 576, 95 Am. Dec. 139; Walton v. Ward, 142 Ga. 385, 82 S. E. 1067; Markoe v. Wakeman, 107 111. 251; Warthen v. Siefert, 139 Ind. 233, 38 N. E. 464; Tainter v. Cole, 120 Mass. 162; Dennison v. Foster, 9 Ohio, 126, 34 Am. Dec. 429; Charleston C. & C. R. Co. v. Leech, 33 S. C. 175, 26 Am. St. Rep. 667; Jewett's Lessee v. Stockton, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 492; Dorn v. Dunham, 24 Tex. 366; Robinett v. Preston's Heirs, 2 Rob. (Va.) 278; Solesberry v. Virginian R. Co., 73 W. Va. 642, 81 S. E. 985.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.