2 CRAPSTER v. GRIFFITH.—2 BLAND.
A party may be arrested under an attachment anywhere, out of, as well as
in the county of his residence. A plaintiff, after a decree in his favor
the common property as will constitute a conversion, and enable a plaintiff
to support trover against a party who is jointly interested with him in the
common property. When there has been a destruction of the joint property
by one of the parties, the other may in this action recover compensation for
his share, and trover also lies for a sale of the chattel by one of the owners
against the other. Winner v. Penniman, 35 Md. 165. And trover lies for
the conversion of chases in action as well as for other personal property.
The vendee of a co-tenant has no greater title than his vendor. Freeman
Co-Tenancy, 311. If one tenant in common of a chattel sell it. it is an ouster
and conversion, and his co-tenant may follow it in the hands of a purchaser,
or recover its value from such wrong-doer. Cemmn's Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 2SO.
One part-owner of a chattel may sue a third party in trover or trespass for
his proportionate share, and unless a plea in abatement be interposed, re-
cover the same. Harker v. Dement, 9 Gill, 8. A joint owner cannot dis-
charge himself of his responsibility in case of the loss of the thing by show-
ing that he has bestowed on it the same care which he bestowed on his
separate property, but is bound to show that he took of it that care which
men ordinarily take of their property. Guiilot v. Dossat, 4 Martin, 203;
Sheldon v. Skinner, 4 Wend. 525.
Where two persons jointly purchase a chattel, the presumption is that
each paid one-half of the purchase money, and were tenants in common. If
one of the parties die, the other is not entitled to the whole by survivorship.
Gibbons v. Riley, 7 Gill, 82. Stock on a farm held by two persons jointly
does not, upon the death of one joint tenant, pass to the survivor to the ex-
clusion of the representatives of the deceased. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 4 H. &
McH. 231. An agreement between landlord and tenant that the former is
to have one-half of the crops, creates a joint interest in the same. Ferrall
v. Kent, 4 Gill. 309. Where negroes were bequeathed to one for life "then
to be an equal division between the rest of my heirs," it was held that the
heirs took as tenants in common. Dashiett v. Dashiell, 2 H. & G. 137. Cf.
Gilpin v. Hollingsworth, 3 Md. 190. If three or more persons, not partners
in trade, purchase a vessel, they hold the same as tenants in common. Mil-
burn v. Guyther, 8 Gill, 92; Coursin's Appeal. 79 Pa. St. 220. As to creation
of a joint tenancy, with right of survivorship, see Rev. Code. Art. 45, sec. 3.
Joint property in the possession of one of the owners may be seized and
sold under a fieri facias against him only; and the purchaser's right will be
complete to the extent of the interest of him against whom execution issued.
McElderry v. Flannagan, 1 H. & G. 308. One of two tenants in common of
chattels naturally severable, (such as grain,) may sever and appropriate,
without the consent of the other, the quantity to which he is entitled; and
the share of such tenant in common, if not exempt, may be severed and
seized by his creditor on execution. Newton v. Howe, 29 Wise. 531.
"Although the inception of the equitable jurisdiction for the partition of
chattels is not traceable with certainty, the jurisdiction itself ia unques-
tioned', and where a literal partition is not practicable, the Court will order
a sale." 3 Pomeroy Eq. Jur. sec. 1391. See, to the same effect in addition to
the cases there cited: Hewitt's Case, 3 Bland, 184: Andrews v. Setts, 8 Hun,
323; Rev. Code, Art. 66, sec. 2. Upon a bill for a partition of chattels by one
tenant in common against another, where the facts constitute a clear case of
the use and enjoyment of the property to the entire exclusion of the com-