Hoerl and the plaintiffs were tenants in common of the wool. The delivery to be made by Hoerl under either of the written agreements in evidence was merely a step looking to a division to be had between the parties according to their respective interests.

Being tenants in common neither could, under the circumstances appearing in this case, maintain replevin against the other, nor against the vendee of the other.

Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.