Job v Potton (1875) LR 20 Eq 84
Liability for shares of profits of tenants in common under the Statute of Anne.
Facts
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.
Issues
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.
Decision/Outcome
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.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article summarises the Victorian case of Job v Potton (1875) LR 20 Eq 84, which remains part of the historical common law on tenants in common and the right to account for profits. The case summary is broadly accurate as a statement of what the court decided.
However, readers should be aware of the following points of current legal context. The Statute of Anne 1705 (which provided a right of account between co-owners) is a historical enactment. Its provisions relating to co-ownership and account have largely been superseded or restated by later legislation and equity. The modern law of co-ownership in England and Wales is principally governed by the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, and disputes between co-owners are now generally resolved under that framework rather than by direct invocation of the Statute of Anne. The article does not address this modern statutory context, which students should bear in mind when using this case as authority.
The broader principle illustrated by this case — that a co-owner who works a jointly owned asset beyond their share may be liable to account to the other co-owners — remains recognised in English land law, though the precise procedural and statutory basis has evolved considerably since 1875. Students should treat this case as illustrative of equitable principles rather than as a direct guide to current procedure or applicable statute.
