
    Samuel M’Kown ads. John Stockdale.
    Where there were three executors, and but two of them had executed a title, (before the Act of 1787,) and the Court of Equity had decreed a confirmation of - the title against the heirs at law, held, that there was no necessity for the third executor to' sign the deed of confirmation.
    This was an action of trespass to try title, tried before Mr. Justice Ooloock, at Chester, Fall Term, 1816.
    * The plallififf produced a grant, 6th December, 1771, for two thousand acres, to Georg'e Evans. The executors of the grantee had sold to Thomas T. Tucker, from whom the plaintiff purchased. On the production of the will of Evans, and the deed by the executors to Tucker, it appeared that three of the executors had qualified, and that two only had signed the deed'. It was admitted that a bill had been filed against the executor, ,and the heirs at law, to perfect the title; and that it having appeared to the Court of Equity, that a fair sale had been made, and a valuable consideration paid, the court had decreed, that a deed of confirmation should be signed by the heirs, and that they had accordingly all executed the deed. But the executor now alive (for one of the two who had signed the conveyance to Tucker, was dead,) had not signed the deed.
    The counsel for the defendant contended that the plaintiff’s title was incomplete, as the executor had not signed the deed of confirmation ; but the presiding judge thought it was, and permitted the case to go to the jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff.
    A motion was now made for a new trial, on the ground, that the conveyance to Thomas T. Tucker, under vfhich the plaintiff claims, was void, as being only executed by a part of the qualified executors of George Evans, deceased.
    
      Clarke, for the motion. Gist, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Colcock, J.

If the plaintiff’s- title^had depended on the conveyance of the surviving executor alone, it could not have supported his action, for it was made before the Act of 1787, (P. L. 423, 1 Brev. Dig. 332,) which gives the power to a majority of the qualified electors, under a will, to sell; it was, therefore, ineffectual by the statute, 21 Henry 8, chap, 4, (P. L. 45, 1 Brev. Dig. 327,) where this power is delegated to executors. Those who qualify, and take upon themselves the execution of a will, are required *all to’join in the conveyance.' But as the Court of Equity had decreed a title to be made by the heirs at law, and that title had been executed, the plaintiff was entitled to his recovery; no other objection having been made to his title. It was not necessary that the surviving executor should have signed the deed made by the heirs, or any other new deed.

Nott, Cheves, Gantt and Johnson, JJ!, concurred. 
      
       5 Stat. 15.
     
      
       2 Stat. 457.
     