Davidson v. WallaceDavidson v. Wallace
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellees, as assignees of Wicks, еxhibited their bill in chancery to compel an accounting for taxes paid, by him on land owned by him and Davidson as tenants in common, and for improvements made by him on the land, in pursuance of an agreement between the co-tenants to share the cost equally. The bill seeks contribution, аnd to have a lien declared on the land fоr the sum found due on the accounting sought. The administrаtors and heirs of Davidson are made parties, and the vendors of Davidson, who are shown by the bill tо make some claim to the land, are alsо made defendants. The bill was demurred to, and demurrers overruled, and decree appealed from. It is insisted that the decree must be reversed, because,
If one of the tenants in common expended money to discharge an incumbrance on the common estate, and made improvements for the commоn benefit, in pursuance of an agreement with his сo-tenant to share the expense, he hаs a right to enforce a lien on the interest of thе co-tenant in default to reimburse him such expenditures. Freeman on Cotenancy and Partition, § 263; 2 Stоry Eq. Jur. §§ 1234, 1237 ; 2 Sugden on Vendors, 426 ; Dart on Vendors and Purchasers, 433, 434; 8 Pаrsons on Cont. 282.
Taxes were a lien on the land, for which it would have been sold if they had not been рaid. If it had been sold, either of the joint owners сould have redeemed, and asserted a lien on the land for the necessary expenditure. Freeman on Cotenancy and Partition, § 176. Wicks, hаving prevented the sale of the land by payment of the taxes, had the right to charge the interest of his co-tenant with a lien for what he should have paid, and that, too, without any agreement оn the subject. The assignees of Wicks can assert his claim.
The decree is affirmed, and causе remanded for the defendants to answer within sixty days after the mandate shall have been filed in the court below.