Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Job v Potton

316 words (1 pages) Case Summary

17th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Job v Potton (1875) LR 20 Eq 84

Liability for shares of profits of tenants in common under the Statute of Anne.


Three persons, Mr. Job, Mr. Potton and Mr. Marriot, were tenants in common of a coal mine. Potton and Marriot came to an agreement with the neighbouring coal miner, Mr. Jones, to whom they gave them full powers of working two-thirds of the coal, yet without the knowledge nor consent of the third tenant. Upon discovery of this arrangement, Job claimed trespass, that injury had been done to the surface, and that the acts amounted to destructive waste.


The question arose as to (1) Mr. Jones was guilty of trespass by extracting the coal, and (2) whether under the Statute of Anne that enables an action of account to be brought by a tenant in common, the two tenants in common were liable to the third for damages and an account of the value of the coal sold.


Firstly, the Court held that Mr. Jones did not commit a tort but merely exercised his legal rights, granted to him by the co-tenants to work in the property, for which he accounted the value of the coal to the co-tenants. Secondly, the Statute of Anne recognises the principle that tenants in common can lawfully exercise their rights to use property, with the only restriction being that each does not appropriate more than his/her respective share in the property. On the facts, the Court held that the co-tenants were merely exercising their rights over their coal mine, placing emphasis on the fact that mining the coal was the sole way in which one enjoys rights in a coal mine. However, the value of raising the coal was undivided and the Court held the co-tenants liable for the value of one-third of the coal raised.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles