
    Joseph Jack, Mary A. Jack, and Sarah J. Jack v. Joseph Hudnall.
    1. Tenants in possession may be sued jointly in an action for trespass committed by animals kept by them in common upon the premises, although the several, animals are owned by them separately and individually.
    2. “Where the finding of facts by the court fairly admits of a construction which will support the judgment, that construction will be adopted rather than a different one which would render the judgment errone-
    Error to the District Court of Athens county.
    This was an action by Hudnall against the plaintiffs in error, for trespasses committed by their cattle upon Hudnall’s premises. The defendants (plaintiffs in error) denied the alleged trespasses. The cause was submitted to the court, a jury being waived, and the court found the facts specially, as follows :
    “ 1. That the plaintiff sustained damages to the amount of twenty dollars, by reason of the trespass of some twelve head of cattle, as in the petition set forth.
    “ 2. That said three defendants lived on a farm which they owned and cultivated in common, whereon said cattle were kept.
    “ 8. That the said cattle that committed the trespass were owned by the defendants.
    “ 4. That there was no joint ownership in said cattle, hut that each defendant owned a part of said cattle in his or her individual right, each owning certain ones of said cattle separate from either of the others of said defendants.’
    Upon this finding the court rendered a judgment for the plaintiff and the same was subsequently affirmed on proceedings in error in the District Court, and it is now sought to reverse this judgment of affirmance, and also the judgment of the Common Pleas.
    
      
      W. Meed Golden, for plaintiff in error. -
    
      Grosvenor § Dana, for defendant in error.
   Welch, J.

As we understand the finding of the court,, these cattle were in the joint possession and custody of the defendants. The finding, at least, fairly admits of that construction, and under the well-known rule, it should therefore be adopted,rather than a different construction, which would render the judgment erroneous. The cattle were-“kept” upon the farm, and the three defendants owned and “cultivated” the farm “in common.” Prima facie, the defendants kept and cared for the cattle. in common. This being the case, we have no hesitation in saying that the court below was right in holding that the defendants were properly joined in the action.

Judgment affirmed.

MoIlvaine, C. J., White, Rex, and Gilmore, JJ., concurred.  