
    ROE, casual ejector, et al., vs. DOE ex dem. W. A. JOHNSON et al.
    
    1. In an action of ejectment, when the title is brought down to two persons, and the defendant offers a deed from one of the two for half of the land, that deed is admissible as evidence to protect the defendant holding under such deed from an eviction.
    Ejectment, from Worth Superior Court. Tried before Judge Lamar, at April Term, 1860.
    The defendant in error brought an action to recover lot of land No. 16, in the 16th district of Worth county.
    After the plaintiff, on the trial, had introduced his evidence and rested his case, defendant, among other things, offered in evidence a deed from one Burch to Eliza Calhoun for one-half of the premises in dispute.
    Counsel for plaintiff objected to its introduction, on the ground that it did not specify what half of the lot it was intended to convey. The Court sustained the objection, and rejected the deed, holding that the same was void for uncertainty.
    To which defendant excepted.
    Defendant then proposed to prove that said Burch had an undivided half interest in the lot; that Calhoun and Burch had bought the lot and had the deed made to them jointly, and were equally interested. The Court rejected the evidence, and counsel for defendant excepted.
    The jury found in favor of plaintiff.
    Scarborough; Warren & Warren, for plaintiff in error.
    Strozier & Slaughter, contra.
    
   By the Court.

Lyon, J.,

delivering the opinion.

The plaintiff brought the title down to one A. R. Broyles, and after proving the defendant to be in possession, closed. The defendant introduced a deed from A. R. Broyles to one James H. T. Calhoun and Benjamin Burch, and then offered a deed from Burch to Eliza Calhoun for one-half the lot. The Court ruled that deed out for uncertainty, and we think the Court erred. That it failed to designate what particular part of the lot was conveyed by it, made no difference. The deed from Broyles to Calhoun and Burch vested in Burch a half interest in the lot, and -Burch’s deed conveyed that interest to Eliza Calhoun, and enabled her to enter on the land under it, by her tenant, Aulfcman. The plaintiff, under his demise from James H. T. Calhoun, could only have been let into the possession with Eliza Calhoun. Plis interest was as uncertain and indefinite as hers. That deed was sufficient to prevent an ejection of her tenant, and it ought to. have been admitted for that purpose. If the tenant was holding more than half of the lot, the plaintiff ought to have asked for a partition.

Judgment reversed.  