atkins case prince v heylin Hilary term a testatrix devise two house to I p  and I h general and then say my meaning be that the rend of my two house shall  be equal share between I p and I h the devisees shall take as tenant in common  and not as jointtenants the testatrix in this case be a lessee for a term of  year of two house in London devise the same to her nephew John prince pewterer  and John heylin clerk general and then the will go on thus and my will and  meaning be that the rend of my say two house shall be equal share and divide  between they the say John prince and John heylin clerk as aforesaid the  testatrix soon after die John prince survive the testatrix and die in ever  since the premise have be enjoy by the defendant as the survivor this bill be  now bring by the administrator of prince to have a account of the rend and  profit the question be whether by the word in the will a jointtenancy or a  tenancy in common be create it be agree clear that if the word equal share  have be annex to the thing itself they will have create a tenancy in common  but insist upon at the same time that the former be plain word of jointtenancy  and the subsequent amount only to a direction in what manner the profit shall  be receive during the life of the devisees videlicet to each of they a equal  share which be say no more than what otherwise the law will direct Lord  chancellor I be clear of opinion the devisees be tenant in common that have  the testatrix express direct the rend to be share during the joint life of the  devisees it may admit of some doubt but with regard to the time the latter  part of the devise be as general as the former and the word rend will as  proper pass the interest in the house as any other word whatever this be  therefore a plain tenancy in common so fisher v Wigg Cox p W note Owen v Owen  post Heathe v Heathe post vol haw v haw post vol stone v Heurtley Ves har    Litt b n gaskin v gaskin Cowp see Rigden v vallier post vol Jolliffe v east  bro Charles Rep in Campbell v Campbell bro Charles Rep the word unto and among  the child c be hold to create a tenancy in common with regard to the time the  defendant be to account for the rend and profit there have be no entry make or  demand of the rend c it have be insist on for the defendant he ought to  account only from the time of the bill file now in the case of jointtenants or  parceners there be a mutual trust atkins between they and they be Accountable  to each other without regard to the length of time it be otherwise in the case  of tenant in common and this be a adversary possession maintain by the  defendant against the plaintiff ever since the death of his intestate however  the statute of limitation be a bar to any demand further back than six year  and by the Ann c S a action of account lie for one tenant in common against  another and such action be express mention in the statute of limitation and as  there be no remedy at law there can be no reason for any in equity I be of  opinion the defendant must account for rend and profit from the death of the  intestate the nature of the estate devise not admit of a adversary possession  in regard of the privity that be between tenant in common a ejectment be not  main tainable by one tenant in common against another without a actual ouster  read v Royston salk story v Windsor post vol Fairclaim on they of Epsom v  shackleton burr do ex they fisher v Prosser Cowp no advantage can be now take  of the statute of limitation it not be plead by the defendant or insist on by  his answer which in all case be necessary in order to have the benefit of such  bar to the plaintiff demand though indeed the court sometime when there be a  very stale demand notwithstanding the statute be not plead will in it be  discretion reduce that demand to a reasonable time and make use if the statute  of limitation as a proper rule to go by in the exercise of that discretion  atkins er p