personal] against another, [would] decree a sale of the property of whose profits an account was sought".

d. In Low v. Holmes, 1864, 17 N. J. Eq. 151 & 153, The Court of Chancery of New Jersey said: "The property in question is the machinery and material of a printing office The complainant. .. has no interest . other than as the owner of an undivided half of the materials. . . The facts constitute a clear case of the use and enjoyment of the property by one tenant, to the entire exclusion of his co-tenant.

ordered, that the defendant,

account for and pay over the one half of the value of the rents and profits of the property".

e. In Blood v. Blood, 1872, 110 Mass. 547, The Supreme Court of Massachusetts said: "One tenant in common of personal chattels . . . is not bound to pay his co-tenant any compensation for the use of the common property; nor to account for the profits, unless he has received more than his just proportion, in which event he is liable to an action of contract in the nature of an implied assumpsit.'

f. In Carter v. Bailey, 1874, 64 Me. 465,

The Supreme Court of Maine said: "Having possession and appropriating it to such uses only as it was designed for, the owner [of stereotype plates co-owned with another] has only what the law gives him; and he may maintain such possession and prosecute such use without laying himself under obligation to pay or account therefor, unless he take more than his share of the rents and income, without the consent of his co-owners, and refuse, in a reasonable time after demand, to pay such co-tenants their share thereof; and then he will be liable to an action of special assumpsit."

§ 57. Review of Co-Owned Personal Property Account.-a. The sense of justice during rude day when personal property, even of physical type, barely received condescending recognition at law, developed no doctrine for or against account between co-owners of incorporeal personal property.

b. The rule then formulated as to enjoyment of corporeal personal property without account between co-owners, related only to personal enjoyment, and for present time. It did not comprehend future time, nor license

to strangers; above all, it did not contemplate monetary profits received from strangers, in consideration for license to them to do in the future otherwise unlawful acts touching the co-owned property.

c. Said old rule seems in later day of personal property prominence, to be changing to a form more in correspondence with the rule governing early valued property, real property. Doctrine appearing in favor of accountability, in instance of one co-owner of ccrporeal personal property receiving more than his share of the monetary profits thereof, proportionate to his interest in such property.

§ 58. Account between Ship Part Owners.- As to the mutual relations of part owners of a ship, the rule early took form that the part owners were governed by the common law rule of co-ownership of corporeal personal property, only in so far as the ship itself was concerned. And that in so far as the earnings of the ship were concerned, the part owners stood in position of partners in trade. This distinction between the corporeal chattel, and the earnings of the same, necessarily

resulted in a corresponding distinction as to the mutual liabilities of the part owners respectively as to the ship, and as to the profits of the business of the ship; the part owners being bound to account to each other, by settled practice, as to the ship's earnings. This peculiarity, incident to this species of corporeal personal property, developed from the interest which the public had in the continuous use of the ship. The common law, which left co-owners of corporeal personal chattels to settle their own matters, was found to work an injury to the state, when applied to ships; and hence the courts. intervened on behalf of public policy, and developed a system of jurisprudence for ships appropriate to their peculiar character.

a. Abbott on Shipping, p. 98, recites: "of ships, 'which are built to plough the sea, and not to lie by the walls', commercial nations consider the actual employment as a matter, not merely of private advantage to their owners, but of public benefit to the state, and therefore have laid down certain positive rules in order to favor this employment, and to prevent the obstinacy of some of the part-owners from condemning the ship to rot in idleness."

b. Story on Partnership, secs. 418 & 449 respectively, recites: "it has been the policy of maritime nations, from a very early period, to provide regulations respecting the joint ownership of ships, in order to prevent the obstinacy of one or more proprietors from interfering with the just rights and interests of the rest, as well as to promote the general advancement of commerce and navigation, and to add to the resources of national wealth and national power." "The right, also, to an account of all the earnings and profits of the ship by all the part-owners, is clear and indisputable."

c. Freeman on Co-Tenancy and Partition, §386, recites: "Some confusion is also likely to arise from inattention to the material difference in the relations which part owners sustain towards their ship and that which they sustain towards its earnings. While a ship is held by a tenancy in common, the earnings are usually treated as resulting from a special partnership, embracing the voyage or adventure from which they were realized."

§ 59. Equity Jurisdiction of Account between Co-Owners. Equity has long taken jurisdic