Opinion
March, 1797.
Wilson. Joint tenants should join for they have a joint title and one freehold, 1 Com.Dig. 15. If they make a lease, their lessees are tenants in common, 3 Com.Dig. 610, 3 Bac.Abr. 188, 192, and this verdict is still wrong being for the whole. It is laid down in 3 Bac.Abr. 216 that joint tenants must join in ejectment. And this because their title and their freehold being the same, they ought to have but one action, and not because they cannot make several leases. If any one of the joint tenants should refuse to join in ejectment, he may be summoned, and severed. 4 Bac.Abr. 663, 664, pl. 6 and 9.
Ridgely. The demise is good for a moiety. Bull.N.P. 107, 1 Wils. 1, Runn.Eject. 223. A, B, C join in a lease, and then A and B made another — held not to be double, 3 Lev. 117, and relied on the case of Hedd and Chaloner, 1 Leon. 146, where in ejectione firmae one joint tenant had judgment for damages, the term having incurred; cited also 14 Vin. 500, pl. 3.
The Court declared to the jury in precise terms that the law was with defendant, and gave them full information, but they found for the plaintiff. Leonard is a book of good authority, and there a joint tenant recovered in ejectment. Burr. 936 shows the discretion of the court, and the justice of the case is with the plaintiff.
Vide 2 Str. 1181.