McDermott

Under the agreement to cut the hay on shares, plaintiff became a tenant in common with Griffin to the *150 extent of one-half. Upon this point the rights of the parties are governed by the principles determined in Bours v. Webster, 6 Cal. 661 , Visher v. Webster, 13 Cal. 58 , and Bernal v. Hovious, 17 Cal. 545 , 79 Am. Dec. 147 . This undivided half was not subject to seizure and sale on execution against Griffin.

The sale of Griffin’s half to the plaintiff did not take place till after the hay was cut and thereby severed from the realty. To -make a valid sale as against creditors, it was necessary under the statute of frauds that there should be an immediate and continued change of possession. After the hay was cut, it was gathered and pressed by three or four men hired and paid by plaintiff, one of whom was Griffin. The other men in gathering and pressing the hay, worked under Griffin’s immediate direction — Griffin acting as a sort of overseer for plaintiff. The hay was cut, pressed and stacked on Griffin’s land — and pressed in Griffin’s press. The hands were boarded on the farm by Griffin. Sometimes plaintiff’s horse and sometimes Griffin’s was used on the press. The…