One tenant in common of a personal chattel has as much right to the possession of it as the,other; therefore, one tenant in common cannot maintain trespass or trover against his co-tenant without sho^ig that the co-tenant has destroyed the joint property. (St. John v. Standring, 2 John. R. 468.) it is not sufficient to shew., that the defendant took forcible possession of- the chattel and carried it away, (Heath v. Hubbard, 4 East. 121.) or that lie changed its form-by applying it to the use it was intended for. (Fennings v. Greenville, 1 Taunt. 241.) In the present case, it was in evidence, that the defendant Wasson, did not retain the possession of the cotton, but caused it to be sent off by thjá other defendant to a place unknown to the plaintiff, so that as to him it is wholly lost, and from its perishable nature, must be destroyed as far as his intereSpin it is concerned. We think the charge of the judge was correct, and the judgment must be affirmed.
Per Curiam. — Judgmektt appirme».