tainly tell which part is his own.” See also collection of cases vol. 29 L. k. A. (N. S.) 225. Different rules of law apply in matters pertaining to the subject matter of the co-tenancy. Jones v. Cohen, 82 N. Car. 75; Bishop v. Bean, 36 Ala. 80; Hanford v. Tethersow, 2 Jones, (N. Car.) L. 293; Strong v. Cotter, 13 Minn. 82; Gamhill Bridge Co. v. Newby, 1 Ore. 173.
Because of the equal right of possession of co-tenants, one of two or more joint tenants or tenants in common of a chattel cannot maintain replevin or an action for the recovery of a specific chattel or his interest therein against his co-tenant. Paulliam v. Burlingame,, 81 Mo. 111; Balch v. Jones, 61 Cal. 234; Ellis v. Culver, 2 Harr, (Del.) 129; Brown v. Roach, 78 Ind. 361; Alford v. Bardeen, 1 Nev. 228; Hill v. Seager, 3 Utah, 379; Strauss v. Crawford, 89 N. Car. 149.
Trover cannot be mainained for the mere detention or exclusive use of the common property. Webb v. Danforth, 1 Day (Conn.) 3o1: Leonard v. Scarborough, 2 Ga. 73; Fightmaster v. Beasley, 7 J. J. Marsk (Ky.) 410; Hinds v. Terry, 1 Miss (Walk) 80; Ballou v. Hale, 47 N. H. 347; Tyler v. Taylor, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 585; Farr v. Smith, 6 Wend (N. Y.) 338; Gilbert v. Dickerson, 7 Wend, (N. Y.) 449; Campbell v. Campbell, 2 Murph. (N. Car.) 65.
A conversion to sustain such an action must amount to a total destruction of the property, or something equivalent to it, through the fault of the co-tenant thus converting it. Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1st ed. Vol. 11 p. 1128; Alderson v. Schulze, 64 Wis. 460.
One tenant in common of a chattel cannot sue another for a conversion unless the common property is destroyed, carried beyond the | limits of the state, or, when perishable, so disposed of as to prevent the other from recovering it. Grim v. Wicker, 80 N. C. 343.
Emil Scow and E. T. Burke, for respondent.
Birdzell, J. This is an action to foreclose a chattel mortgage. The mortgagors, Nelson and Johnston, were not personally served, and did not appear. The defendant Halpern answered. From a judgment in favor of the latter for $1,614.52, the plaintiff appeals, and asks for a trial de novo. The material facts are substantially as follows:
The defendants Nelson and Johnston, farmers in the vicinity of Bowman, had become indebted to the plaintiff bank in the sum of $6,-
