
    Jonathan Hunt and Wife versus Joseph Sprague.
    11 a plea of non-tenure with disclaimer, it is not necessary to allege that the tenant doth not make any claim to the demanded premises.
    This was a writ of entry, in which the demandants counted on their own seisin, and a disseisin by the tenant, who pleads m bar, “ that, at the time of suing out the demandant’s * original writ, he had not, nor at any time since hath had, [ * 313 J and now hath not any estate in, or claim to, or possession of, the said demanded premises, or any part thereof, and this hr is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays judgment,” &c.
    To this plea the demandant demurs, and assigns for cause, “ that the said Sprague has not in his said plea alleged that, at the time of suing out the original writ in this action, he did not make any claim to the demanded premises, or at any time since hath not made, and now doth not make any claim to the demanded premises ” .
    
      Ward, for the demandants.
    
      Bigelow, for the tenant.
    
      
       8 Co. 123. Beecher's case
      
    
   Curia.

Non-tenure to this action may be pleaded either with ot without disclaimer. In this plea there is much surplusage. It would have been enough to allege that, at the time of suing the writ, he did not hold, never since has held, and now does not hold the tenements demanded. In its present form it is substantially a pieu of non-tenure with disclaimer, and, being demurred to, it is sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s suit . 
      
      
        [Prout vs. Libbey, 14 Mass. 151.— Ed.]
     