
    Ainsworth et al. v. Allen.
    Two or moro Cannot join in an action for a vexatious suit, because tho injury is separate and personal.
    This was an action on the statute; against vexatious suits; which is, “ That whensoever any plaintiff shall wittingly and willingly wrong any defendant, by commencing and prosecuting any action, suit, complaint, or indictment, in bis own name, or in tbe name of others, with intent unjustly to Tex and trouble such defendant, such plaintiff, being legally convicted thereof, shall pay treble damages to the party grieved, and be fined the sum of forty shillings.” The declaration was, that the defendant maliciously and unjustly brought forward, and prosecuted against the plaintiffs, a certain action of trespass, which was groundless and vexatious. '■
    The general issue was pleaded — and a verdict for the plaintiffs.
    Mr. Larrabee moved in arrest of judgment, for the insufficiency of the declaration. The exception taken, was, that the injury complained of, was a mere personal injury to the plaintiffs individually; and therefore they could not join in an action for redress.
    And the judgment was arrested.
   By the whole Court.

Here is a joint action by three plaintiffs, not for a joint wrong, or an injury to joint property, or the violation of a joint right; but for separate personal wrongs to each; for which the law will not sustain a joint action. One person has no right to recover for the wrongs done to another; nor is there any rule, in a case like this, to apportion the damages found, to the wrongs of each, though they may be variant, as well as distinct: One may have suffered imprisonment, another the loss of his property, and a third, only vexation of mind.  