Amother's will left her farm to her son and daughter "jointly, as tenants in common." the son and the daughter, having had no interest in farming, had long since moved to a large city about 150 miles from the farm. however, after the mother's death the son decided to move back to the farm. the son rented various parts of the farm to sharecroppers and regularly sent half of any profits from the farm to the daughter. a few years later the daughter died, leaving a will devising all of her property to a friend. the son, however, refuses to pay any of the profits of the farm to the friend and claims an exclusive interest in the farm. if the friend sues the son, how will a court most likely rule? a for the son, because he actively managed the use of the farm and the daughter never showed any interest in it. b for the son, because he survived the daughter, the other joint tenant. c for the son, because the unities of time, title, and interest have been destroyed by the daughter's death. d for the friend, because he inherited the daughter's interest.

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.