
    [Civil No. 1005.
    Filed January 25, 1909.]
    [99 Pac. 476.]
    R. N. LEATHERWOOD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. R. R. RICHARDSON and DAVID ALLEN, Defendants and Appellees.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District, in and for the County of Pima. John H. Campbell, Judge.
    On rehearing. Former opinion adhered to and judgment below affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Former opinions, see 11 Ariz. 163, 89 Pae. 503; 11 Ariz. 278, 94 Pac. 1110.
    Frank H. Hereford, for Appellant.
    One eotenant or partner in a mining claim cannot have the claims relocated' by a third party in such a manner as to preclude the interests of his partners or cotenants. Loclcart v. Leeds, 10 N. M. 568, 63 Pac. 48.
    The possession of one eotenant is the possession of all, and the statute of limitations cannot be set up to oust a eotenant of his interest by another eotenant. Union Consolidated Silver Min. Co. v. Taylor, 100 IT. S. 37, 25 L. Ed. 541; 5 Morr. Min. Rep. 323; Crowder v. McDonald, 21 Mont. 367,. 54 Pac. 43; Moss v. Rose, 27 Or. 595, 50 Am. St. Rep. 743, 41 Pac. 668.
    S. M. Franklin, for Appellees.
    The finding of the court that the plaintiff had no title or interest in the property in dispute, in an action to quiet title, completely disposes of the ease and warrants a judgment against plaintiff, denying him any relief. Curtis v. Boquillas etc. Co., 9 Ariz. 62, 76 Pac. 613; Daly v. Sorocco, 80 Cal. 367, 22 Pac. 211; Murphy v. Bennett, 68 Cal. 528, 9 Pac. 738; Gavin v. Swain, 113 Cal. 324, 45 Pac. 677.
   PER CURIAM. —

This matter is before us on rehearing granted. Ofir former opinion in the ease is to be found in 11 Ariz., pages 163 and 278, 89 Pac; 503, and 94 Pac. 1110. We find no reason to change the views there expressed, or the result reached.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

DOAN, J. — I adhere to my dissent herein.  