mvrs v. crurmn. 47
t for the proposed‘application·of the doctrine is the case of Ford v. Knapp,
6 N; Et Rept 283. In that case the ownersof an undivided half inter- ‘
est in a mill bought at execution sale the other half, and, being. in pos-
session, proceeded during the period of 15 months allowed by the law
of New York for redemption from such sales to make necessary repairs
and alterations; but before the end of that period creditors of the execu-
tion debtor redeemed from the sale, and, having acquired the title of the
debtor, sued for partition; and, in determining whether there should be -
compensation-for the repairs so made out of the proceeds ofthe sale of ,
the mill ordered in the suit forpartition, the court held that "by relation,
and through their redemption," the creditors became " vested with the right
-‘ of the debtor from the date of the sale, and thereby tenants in common
with thedefendants from that date, by relation, or vested with the rights
, of such a»co·tenantr" It will be seen, on reference to the opinion, that
~ the court ;put out ofrview as immaterial the execution sale, which, it is to
. be observed,.never ripened into a conveyance, and decided the caseras if
it had arisen between the original co-tenants, whose relation as such had
nremainedrundisturbed. The case would have been very different, and
. essentially like this one, if, no redemption from the execution sale hav-
, ing been eifeoted, the purchasers had become the sole owners of the prop-
. erty, and afterwards, by the enforcement of some paramount lien, had
lost the half interest so acquired,·and, in a suit for partition thereafter
- brought,,hed» sougbtcompensation- for repairs made during or before the
__ time of theirvsole ownership. So,.too, on the record presented here, if
the mortgage to Davis had not been made, or- no· foreclosure or sale had
been had under it, and if·Ford or any creditor of Ford, had redeemed
. from the salesto Chapman, and then sought partition, and Chapman in
_ that proceeding had brought. forward his claim for repairs made- before
. such redemption, the question would have been the same as in the case
cited, but manifestly and broadly different from the question. presented
upon the facts as they are in this case. By making repairs and improve-
ments the defendant certainly acquired no lien upon the property itself,
and without such lien therelseemsito be sa ground for enforcing his de-
mand for compensation against the purchaser under the mortgage.
[The court 'is of the opinion that the accounting should embrace no
charge on either side for matter which occurred before January 22, 1877;
and, as this includes taxes accrued beforertliat time, the error of the mas-
ter in that respect is reduced to $212.43. _ V
  The Hriding of the master in respect to the monthly rental value of the
- hotel is sufiiciently, well supported by the proof of prices obtained by the
_ defendantof lessees of the property, and in some measure by other evi-
‘ dence; and if for any part of the time this estimate could be deemed
high, the overoharge has been well compensated by the master’s dispo-
N sition of the subject of interest,,which, computed in the ordinarylway,
` would have addeda considerable sum to the amount of the finding.
· The. proposition thatat common law one tenant in common cannot re
ycover of another forvmereoccupation isrecognized, and, under the maxim
ithat_equityQfollows_the law, I suppose the plaintiff ought not inl this ac-