Case Name: Doe, on the Demise of Wilkinsons, v. Thomas Fleming
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1826-12
Citations: 2 Ohio 301
Docket Number: 
Parties: Doe, on the Demise of Wilkinsons, v. Thomas Fleming.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 2
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
Doe, on the Demise of Wilkinsons, v. Thomas Fleming.
Tenants in common may make a joint demise in,-ejectment.
This cause was reserved in Butler county, it was an action of ejectment, in which the declaration contained a single demise. The lessors of the plaintiff were six in number. They deduced title under the will of John Wilkinson, their father, who devised his lands to his seven children, as joint devisees. One of the dev isees had conveyed his share to a co-devisee, one of the lessors of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff having exhibited his title, as above stated, the defendant’s counsel moved for a nonsuit, upon the ground that the title exhibited, showed that the lessors of the plaintiff were tenants in common, who could not make a joint demise. This motion was sustained by the court, and the plaintiff became nonsuit: The question, whether the nonsuit was correctly ordered, was, by agreement, reserved for decision at Columbus. If the decision was correct, judgment of nonsuit to be set aside, and a new trial awarded.
*Higgins, for the plaintiff,
cited Jackson v. Bradt, 2 Caine, 169, where the courts of New York overruled the English decisions, and settled that tenants in common could join in a joint demise. He argued that the reasons alleged in New York were equally operative in Ohio. The doctrine originated in a technicality, which there was no propriety in adhering to. He also contended that the statute of Ohio had authorized tenants in common to make a joint demise. 22 Ohio Laws, 62, sec. 29.
Woods, for the defendant,
examined the decision in the case of Jackson v. Bradt, relied upon by the plaintiff, contested its correctness, and dispmted its authority. Ho argued, also, that the statute did not authorize a recovery upon a joint demise, by tenants in common. Its intention was merely to declare what the law was,.not to introduce a new rule. The provision that “separate demises should only be laid in the names of tenants in common,” is inconsistent, upon any other construction, with other provisions.

Opinion:
By the Court :
In the case of the Lessee of Massie's Heirs v. Long and others, decided at this term, the court have settled that, under our statute, tenants in common may make a joint demise. That decision is decisive of this case.
The nonsuit must be set aside, and a new trial directed.
Note by the Editor. — See note to Lessee of Massie's Heirs v. Long et al., ii. 287, and that case.