
    SHARP v. WILLIAMS.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 132-133.)
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1858.
    TENANTS IN COMMON. Trustees for each other.
    Where parties stand in the relation of tenants in common of certain land, neither party, by buying- up an outstanding-title or removing an incumbrance, can appropriate the land to his exclusive use. Such purchase inures to the common benefit of both; but both must equally contribute to the expense thus incurred. [Tisdale v. Tisdale, 2 Sneed, 59G; Laffert.y v. Turley, 3 Sneed, 181, 182; Williams v. Gideon, 7 Heis., 620.]
   McKinney, J.,

delivered the opinon of the court:

The complainant and defendant were separate creditors of one Calvin Hudson. They had each recovered judgment before a justice for their several demands, upon which executions had been issued and were levied on a tract of land, granted to Hudson and Levi Smith, jointly. At the sheriff’s sale, the- complainant and defendant, jointly bid the aggregate amount of their judgments for the land, and ic was struck off to- them; but no deed of conveyance was ever made by the sheriff. It appears that prior to the levy of the executions on the land, Hudson had conveyed said land to two of his sons. Sometime after the purchase by the parties to this suit, at the execution sale, the defendant procured a deed of conveyance to himself, individually, for said lands, from the two- sons of Hudson, in which the father joined. This was done to perfect the title upon the assumption that the sale by the sheriff was inoperative to communicate title, in consequence of the previous conveyance by Hudson to his sons. The complainant likewise, after the purchase at execution sale, purchased in the outstanding title of the heirs of Levi Smith, one of the joint grantees. Upon this state of facts the defendant, who is in possession, refuses to admit the complainant as a tenant in common, and denies his interest in the land.

It is clear that by their joint purchase, they became tenants in common of the land. The purchase by the defendant of the supposed interest of Hudson’s two sons, was perhaps, supererogatory, as it is obvious the conveyance to them was inoperative, against the creditors of their father.

But, supposing the contrary of this to be true, still, inasmuch as the parties stood in the relation of tenants in common, the purchase of an outstanding title, or the. removal of an' incumbrance upon the land purchased, by either party, would inure to the common benefit of both; of course they must equally contribute to the expense thus incurred. This doctrine is well settled. (See Tisdale v. Tisdale, 2 Sneed, 596.) Neither party, by buying up an outstanding title, can claim to appropriate the land, under it, to his own exclusive use. The decree will be affirmed.

Decree affirmed.  