Clipped From The Times
(JUfort Mx. Jciticx A. L. Suits.) XTBCXO T. HaXPII.SAX. This was the further consideration of aa action raiting an interesting point of law as to the right of joint owners of a chattel. The action was for possession, possession, or alternatively damages of a gold enamelled snuffbox valued at 130. The plaintiffs were art dealers, and were joint owners of the box with a man called Frankenheim another art dealer. Frankenheim pledged the box as security for a loan to the defendant defendant without the authority of the plaintiff, telling him, when so doing, that it belonged to him jointly wilb Ine piaintltls. Mr. FX tux appeared for the plaintiff and argued that though the plaintiff could have no. action against the .other joint owner, Frankenheim, for possession, yet he was entitled to recover it from a stranger, even though it bad been pledged : and relied on Barton v. Williams " (5 B. and Aid. 393), and ", Maybe w v. Herrick " (7 C.B.,229) to show that the sale or pledge by one tenant in common without the authority of his co - tenant passed no title ;', at all events, not in respect of the half in which he had no tiUe. Mr. W. H. Clay, for the defendant, - was not call on.' Mb. Jcsticx A. L. Sxun, after stating the facts, raid that it had been held that the part owner might sell or create a lien on his share of the chattel, and his co - owner could not sue him for so doing, unless he had destroyed it. He was of opinion that the co - owner could not maintain an action against the person to whom it was so sold or pledged, since be merely stood in the shoes of bis vendor. In " Barton v. Williams," the part owner purported to pledge the whole, which he had no right to do. Here the vendor had onlv pledsed his half. " Jones v. Browne "'(29 LJ.), was in point there the one tenant in common wiuous we auiuonry oi ue ower, aispoeeu ei a house so ei to create a lien, and it was held there was no conversion. The - plaintiff could not succeed without paying off the amount of lien up to the value of the undivided moiety! of Frankenheim. It was said that there was a special contract of the plaintiffs with Frank enheinm that they should keep possession ; but inai oia not aneet tne question, uougnit mignt give the plaintiffs a right of action against Frankenheim for the breach. He did not see any legal ground on which he could give relief to the plaintiffs.so there would be judgment for the defendant with costs. Execution stayed in the event of an appeal.