It may be maintained by one joint tenant or tenants in common against another who has dispossessed him ; White's Lessee v. Sayre, 2 Ohio 110 ; Barnitz v. Casey, 7 Cra. (U. S.) 456, 3 L. Ed. 403; Clark v. Vaughan, 3 Conn. 191; Den v. Bordine, 20 N. J. L. 394; Edwards v. Bishop, 4 N. Y. 61; Peterson v. Laik, 24 Mo. 541, 69 Am. Dec. 444; Avery v. Hall, 50 Vt. 11. Co-tenants need not join as against a mere disseisor ; Smith v. Stark weather, 5 Day (Conn.) 207; Chesround v. Cunningham, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 82; Craig v. Taylor, 6 B. Monr. (Ky.) 457; but mere ten ants in common may ; Hicks v. Rogers, 4 Cra. (U. S.) 165, 2 L. Ed. 583; Innis v. Craw ford, 4 Bibb (Ky.) 241; Camp v, Homesley, 3,5 N. C. 211. It may be maintained by the wife against the husband to recover her sep arate real estate; Crater v. Crater, 118 Ind. 521, 21 N. E. 290, 10 Am. St. Rep. 161.
A court of law will not uphold or enforce an equitable title to land as a defence to an action of ejectment ; Johnson v. Christian, 128 U. S. 374, 9 Sup. Ct. 87, 32 L. Ed. 412; Doe v. Aiken, 31 Fed. 393; contra, Brolaskey v. McClain, 61 Pa. 146; but see, Brame v. Swain, 111 N. C. 542, 15 S. E. 938; Hamilton v. Williford, 90 Oa. 210, 15 S. E. 753.. In Pennsylvania, ejectment lies on an equitable title and is the full equivalent of a bill in equity; Winpenny v. Winpenny, 92 Pa. 440.
Where a defendant has entered a disclaim er of title and possession, he cannot defend his possession as agent of his wife without first showing a title in her ; Duncan v. Sher man, 121 Pa. 520, 15 Atl. 565.
Where a defendant in ejectment repudi ates a tenancy and claims a title in fee, he dispenses with the necessity of notice to quit ; McGinnis v. Fernandes, 126 Ill. 228, 19 N. E. 44; Simpson v. Applegate, 75 Cal. 342, 17 Pac. 237.
Plaintiff in ejectment in proving title need not go further back than the common source of title, where the defendant claims under the same person; Johnson v. Cobb, 29 S. C. 372, 7 S. E. 601; Luen v. Wilson, 85 Ky. 503, 3 S. W. 911; Laidley v. Land Co., 30 W. Va. 505, 4 S. E. 705 ; Blalock v. Newhill, 78 Ga. 245, 1 S. E. 383; Drake v. Happ, 92 Mich. 580, 52 N. W. 1023.
In case title is denied, it cannot be prov ed by merely producing a. deed, but when such a deed is produced from a grantor who was in possession, or where possession was taken and held under such deed, and the premises in the deed are clearly identified, then a prima facie title is shown; Hartley v. Ferrell, 9 Fla. 374 ; McFarlane v. Ray, 14
Mich. 465 ; Hall v. Kellogg, 16 Mich. 135; Cottrell v. Pickering, 32 Utah 62, 88 Pac. 696, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 404.
The plea of not guilty raises the general issue; Zeigler v. Fisher's Heirs, 3 Pa. 365; King v. Kent's Heirs, 29 Ala. 542.
The judgment is that the plaintiff recover his term and damages; Battin v. Bigelow, Pet. C. C. 452, Fed.' Cas. No. 1,108; Congrega tional Soc. in Newport v. Walker, 18 Vt. 600; Livingston v. Tanner, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 481; Carroll v. Carroll, 16 How. (U. S.) 275, 14 L. Ed. 936; or damages merely where the the term expires during suit ; Jackson v. Davenport, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 295.
Where the fictitious form is abolished', how ever, the possession of the land generally is recovered, and the recovery may be of part of what the demandaut claims ; Treon's Les see v. Emerick, 6 Ohio 391; Thornton's Les see v. Edwards, 1 H. & McH. (Md.) 158; Vrooman v. Weed, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 330; Lenoir v. South, 32.N. C. 237; Little v. Bish op, 9 B. Monr. (Ky.) 2i0; Loard v. Philips, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 566; Messick v. Thomas, 84 Va. 891, 6 S. E. 482.
The damages are, regularly, nominal mere ly; and in such case an action of trespass for mesne profits lies to recover the actual damages; Baron v. Abeel, 3 Johns. (N. 'Y.) 481, 3 Am. Dec. 515; Shipley v. Alexander, 3 Harr, & 3. (Md.) 84, 5 Am. Dec. 421; Mil le• v. Melchor, 35 N. C. 439; Davis v. Doe, 25 Miss. 445; Saunders v. Lee, 101 N. C. 3, 7 S. E. 590; Gooch v. Botts, 110 Mo. 419, 20 S. W. 192; Roach v. Heffernan, 65 Vt. 485, 27 Atl. 71. See TRESPASS FOR MESNE PROFITS ; ADVERSE POSSESSION.
In some states, however, full damages may be, assessed by the jury in the original ac tion; Congregational Soc. in Newport v. Walker, 18 Vt. 600; Livingston v. Tanner, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 481; Jenkins v. Means, 59 Ga. 55; Emrich v. Ireland, 55 Miss. 390; Whissenhunt v. Jones, 78 N. C. 361; and the verdict is conclusive as to the damages ; Mills v. Fletcher, 100 Cal. 142, 34 Pac. 637.
For the history of ejectment, see 3 Sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. Hist. 611.