Wilmarth v. Palmer

Tenants in common: Use and occupation: Co-tenants. A tenant in common of lands is not liable to his co-tenants for use and occupation by him of their common estate, in the absence of any agreement or understanding that he was to pay for the same. Adverse holding: Landlord and tenant: Rent. And the suggestion that his holding was adverse would, not better the matter, since that would destroy the relation of landlord and tenant entirely, and would be equally fatal as an objection to recovering rent.

Error to Wayne Circuit. This was an appeal by Erviu Palmer from the 'decision of the commissionei’s on claims in the matter of the estate of James Lee, deceased, disallowing his claim. The cause was tried by jury and judgment rendered in Palmer’s favor, and Wilmarth, the administrator, brought error. relied upon Everts v. Beach, 31 Mich., 136, and Hogsett v. Ellis, 17 Mich., 351. conceding that one tenant in common cannot recover rent of his co-tenant when each is left to his own choice to occupy or not, argued that where one joint owner is in exclusive possession of the whole premises, and claiming title to the whole, the general rule of joint tenancy does not obtain, and cited: Bray v. Bray, 30 Mich., 479; Fiquet v. Allison, 12 Mich., 328; Hone v. Howell, 46 Ga., 9; Israel v. Israel, 30 Md., 120; Noble v. McFarland, 51 Ill., 226; Seers v. Sellers, 28 Ia., 501; Freeman v. Cheny, 46 Ga., 14; Graham v. Pierce, 19 Grat., 28; Early v. Friend, 16 Grat., 21.