
    Atkinson v. Rittenhouse et al.
    The wife must be joined with her husband in ejectment for her land; and unless named in the declaration, she is not a party, though named in the title of the action.
    In error from the Common Pleas of Montgomery county.
    
      March 23. « H. Rittenhouse, intermarried with Eliza, late Eliza Norman,” plaintiff, brought an ejectment for land which was the property of Eliza. The writ recited “ the right of possession or title to which he, the said II. R., saith is in him, and not in,” &c.
    The court below (Krause, P. J.) decided the joinder of the wife as a party was unnecessary.
    
      April 13.
    
      Mulvany, for plaintiff in error,
    cited 7 Watts, 113; 6 Watts, 301; Rees v. Waters, 9 Watts, 90.
    
      Powell, contra,
    contended the wife was joined.
   Per Curiam.

The wife, in this instance, is" clearly not joined as a plaintiff with her husband; for though there has, • perhaps, been a practice to name them in this manner in the entitling of the action, the husband alone is named as plaintiff in. the declaration. He sues in her right, and cannot recover without her.

Judgment reversed.  