
    John and William Myers v. David Myers.
    Columbia,
    Dec. 1829.
    The joinder of a plaintiff having no interest in the cause of action is a good ground for nonsuit.
    The defendant, being in possession of the land, planted a crop, and afterwards entered whilst the plaintiff was in possession, and reaped and carried away the produce. Held, that the plaintiff could not maintain tresspass, without shewing title, or that his own entry was under lawful authority.
    If a stranger eject the real owner, and the latter re-enter aud turn him out, the former cannot maintain trespass. The rule is the same when there is ne evidence of title in either party, but each relies upon his possession.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Columbia, Fall Term, 1829.
    TRESPASS for breaking plaintiffs’ close, and cutting and carrying away a crop of rye and oats there growing. The presiding Judge ordered a nonsuit, the grounds of which, as well as ■ the facts in evidence, sufficiently appear iu the opinion delivered by the Court of Appeals. The plaintiff now moved to set aside the nonsuit.
    Preston, for the motion.
    Bi.andino, contra.
    
   Johnson, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The plaintiffs did not make title in themselves to the locus in quo, but rested their right to recover, on their possession alone. It was therefore incumbent on them to prove a rightful joint possession in themselves : in which, after a careful review of the evidence, I am clearly of opinion there was an entire failure. It appears from the evidence, that William Myers entered into possession in January, 1828, but none of the witnesses speak of John Myers, the other plaintiff, as in any manner connected with that possession, nor is there before the Court any other evidence that he had any interest in it. He was, therefore, improperly joined in the action; for there is no rule of practice better known, than that the joinder of parties plaintiffs, having no interest in the cause of action, is a good ground for a non-suit. 1 Ch. Pl. 54. Ib. 8.

Another view of this subject is equally decisive against the right of the plaintiffs to recover, under the circumstances before the Court. The defendant was himself in possession in the autumn preceding the entry of the plaintiffs, and planted the crop which he afterwards reaped and carried away, which is the trespass now complained of; and until the plaintiffs show, that they entered under rightful authority, they must, upon the very principle on which they rely to maintain this action, be regarded as trespassers on him. Having planted the crop, it may well be said that he was intitled to reap it, unless he had been ejected by the rightful owner, or by legal authority.

The question appears to me well illustrated by the case put by counsel. If a stranger enter my dwelling house, and eject me from it, and I afterwards re-enter and turn him out, may he maintain trespass against me 1 Clearly not. Every, one has a right to the possession of that which belongs to him, and may assume it whenever he can, if in so doing he commit no breach of the peace.

Motion refused.  